How many judgments cite Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT?

196 judgments on BharatTax cite Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (377 ITR 533), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 10B(3), Section 133(6), Section 10B(2)(a), Section 234B, Section 10(B)(3), Section 108(1)(e).

Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

377 ITR 533High Court2015#477 most cited

What is Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Knowledge Process Outsourcing (KPO) service providers are functionally dissimilar to Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) or Information Technology Enabled Services (ITeS) providers and cannot be compared for transfer pricing purposes, even under the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM). Further, companies with significantly different business models, such as those with extensive subcontracting, should be excluded as comparables.

196

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT · 377 ITR 533 · Section 92C(2) · Transfer Pricing · comparable companies · KPO BPO functional dissimilarity · Transactional Net Margin Method · TNMM · business model difference · subcontracting · Section 10A · Section 10B

Also reported as

279 CTR 441

Sections most often in play

Section 10B(3)Section 133(6)Section 10B(2)(a)Section 234B Section 10(B)(3)Section 108(1)(e)Section 10A Section 10B(1)(e)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

captive service provider section 92c(2)resulting company working capital adjustment transactional net margin method far analysis related party transaction demerger comparable companies tested party strategic investment amalgamation

Judgments citing Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

Global E-Business Operations Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 212/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri.P.C.Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Ms.Padmavathy S, AM IT(TP)A No.212/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 M/s.Global E-Business The Deputy Commissioner of Operations Private Limited Income-tax, Circle 3(1)(1) v. Bangalore. 1st Floor, Hewlett Packard Enterprises, Sy No.192, Whitefield Road, Mahadevpura Post Bangalore – 560 048. PAN : AABCG2843D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.P.C.Kincha, CA Respondent by : Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 27.09.2022 Date of Hearing : 26.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, JM :…

Facebook India Services Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2386/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Facebook India Online Services Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, 12Th Floor, Building No.20, Circle – 17(1), Unit 1203 & 1204, Hitech City, Hyderabad. Madhapaur, Hyderabad. Pan : Aabcf5150G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dhanesh Bafna & Chandni Shah Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.09.2022

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar – CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2014-15 Facebook India Online Services Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, of Income Tax, 12th Floor, Building No.20, Circle – 17(1), Unit 1203 & 1204, Hitech City, Hyderabad. Madhapaur, Hyderabad. PAN : AABCF5150G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Dhanesh Bafna & Chandni Shah Revenue by: Shri Rajendra Kumar – CIT-DR Date of hearing: 20.07.2022 Date of pronouncement: 19.09.2022 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. The appeal of t…

Eit Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 210/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92D

…s on contract IT(TP)A No.210/Bang/2021 EIT Services India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 46 of 66 basis. Ld. AR has placed reliance upon decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Rampgreen Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 60 taxmann.com 355/234 Taxman 573/377 ITR 533 Hon'ble Court had held that once a company falls into the category of high-end KPO, it cannot be functionally comparable with a BPO service provider like that of assessee. Applying this reissue in the present case, we direct Ld.AO to eliminate this comparable from final list." 30. In view of the above order of the Tribunal, we are inclined to d…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Delhi vs. M/S. Convvergys India Services Pvt. Ltd & Anr

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

ITA/234/2022HC Delhi29 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

Section 133(6)

…determining the arm’s length price to be reliable, it is necessary that the controlled transactions be compared with uncontrolled transactions which are similar in all material aspects. In Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2015) 377 ITR 533, Delhi, the learned Predecessor Division Bench has held as under:- “41. Having stated the same, it may be necessary to bear in mind that supernormal profits may in certain cases indicate a functional dissimilarity or dissimilarity with respect to a feature that has a material bearing on the profitability. In such circumstances, it would be necess…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Delhi vs. M/S. Convvergys India Services Pvt. Ltd & Anr

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

ITA-234/2022HC Delhi29 Jul 2022

Section 133(6)

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Delhi vs. M/S. Convvergys India Services Pvt. Ltd & Anr

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

ITA - 234 / 2022HC Delhi29 Jul 2022

Section 133(6)

Ventura India Pvt. Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Tp-2)2, Pune

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 214/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: S/Shri M.P. Lohia, Rajendra Agiwal &For Respondent: Smt. Vidya Bajpai

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253(1)

…ance on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Open Solutions Software Services (P) Ltd. (2020)116 taxmann.com 708 (Delhi), PCIT Vs. Aptara Technology (P) Ltd. (2019) 40 TR 100 (Bombay) and Rampgreen Solutions (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 377 ITR 533 submitted that the companies having different business models are not comparable with the appellant company and therefore, urged for exclusion of this company from the list of comparables. (E). The ld. CIT-DR submitted that since 98.39% of the revenue is derived from the software development this company is comparable with that of the appellant c…

Ntt Data Information Processing Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 297/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 143(3)

…that of assessee even though assessee before us also carries out certain services on contract basis. Ld.AR has placed reliance upon decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Rampgreen Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 60 taxmann.com 355/234 Taxmann, 573/377 ITR 533 Hon'ble court had held that once a company falls into the category of high-end KPO, it cannot be functionally comparable with a BPO service provider like that of assessee. Applying this reissue in the present case, we direct Ld.AO to eliminate this comparable from final list." 30. In view of the above order of the Tribunal, we are inclined to di…

ACIT 12(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Morgan Stanley Advantage Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross

ITA 1215/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2022AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

…assessee’s own case for A.Y.2007-08 reported in 109 taxmann.com 101 had excluded E-Clerx Services Ltd., as functionally not comparable by placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rampgreen Solutions Ltd., vs. CIT reported in 377 ITR 533. The functions performed by the assessee during the year under consideration are similar to the functions performed in A.Y. 2007-08. Hence, reliance could be placed on the Tribunal decision for A.Y.2007-08 in this regard. Accordingly, we hold that E-clerx Services Ltd., should be excluded from the final list of comparables. 4.9. We find that the…

Frost & Sullivan (India) P.Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT (OSD) 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1124/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2022AY 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” Bench, Mumbai Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Kuldip Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 1124/Mum/2014 (A.Y. 2009-10) Vs. DCIT, OSD-8(1) Frost & Sullivan (India) Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan ASV Hansa, 4th Floor M.K. Road No. 53, Greams Road Churchgate Thousand Lights Mumbai-400 020. Chennai-600 006. (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 484/Mum/2014 (A.Y. 2009-10) Vs. Frost & Sullivan (India) DCIT, OSD-8(1) Aayakar Bhavan Pvt. Ltd. M.K. Road ASV Hansa, 4th Floor Churchgate No. 53, Greams Road Mumbai-400 020. Thousand Lights Chennai-600 006. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN : AAACF4252A Assesse…

ACIT, Circle- 27(2), New Delhi vs. Wns Business Consulting Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, CO of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7439/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M Baranwal, Sr. DR

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I-2”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Year : 2009-10 ACIT, Vs. WNS Business Consulting Circle-27(2) Services Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 194B, PL No. 10, Gate No. 4, Godrej & C.R. Building, Boyce Complex, Pirojshanagar, I.P. Estate, LBS Marg, Vikhroli (West) New Delhi – 110002 Mumbai Maharashtra Pin 400 079 PAN AABCT8951H (Appellant) (Respondent) CO No. 40/Del/2018 Arising out of ITA 7439/Del/2017 Asstt. Year : 2009-10 WNS Business Consulting Vs. ACIT, Circle-27(2) Services Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi Mantri Sterlin…

Headstrong Services India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our observations contained in the preceding paragraphs

ITA 508/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. R. Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92BSection 92C

…y Company. 40. In our opinion, since the E-Clerx Services Ltd. had a different revenue recognition policy outsourcing expenditures having different business models and the same is non-comparable by applying principal laid down in the case of Rampgreen [2015] 377 ITR 533 wherein Hon’ble Delhi High Court held as follows:- “33. The Special Bench of the Tribunal in Maersk Global Centers (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) struck a different cord. The Special Bench of the Tribunal held that even though there appears to be a difference between BPO and KPO Services, the line of difference is very thin. The Tribunal was of the v…

Morgan Stanley Solutions India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 9(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

ITA 626/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Blemorgan Stanley Advantage Services Pvt. Ltd., V. Dcit – Circle – 9(2) {Successor To Morgan Stanley Solutions Room No. 261, 2Nd Floor India Pvt. Ltd.,} Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Antena Building No.5 Mumbai - 400020 Sector 30, Mindspace, Goregaon (W) Mumbai – 400090 Pan: Aadcm7403M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Tajendra Pal SinghFor Respondent: Dr. Sunil M. Lala

Section 144C(5)Section 234D

…now it is fairly well settled that these two companies are KPO service providers. This has been held in a number of judicial precedents including the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Rampgreen Solutions Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner of Income Tax 377 ITR 533 (Del). In our view, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has made a fundamental error by including these two companies in spite of the fact that he himself was satisfied that the assessee is not a KPO service provider. As regards Coral Hubs Limited (earlier, Vishal Information Technologies Limited), it is a fact on record that it has abnormally low emp…

DCIT 7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Goldman Sachs (India) Securities P.Tl, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1546/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Mrs. Diva Singh & Shri Rifaur Rahmangoldman Sachs (India) Dy.Cit-7(1)(1), Securities Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 522, Aayakar Bhavan, 951 A, Rational House, Vs M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. Pan: Aafca6819F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Dy.Cit-7(1)(1), Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Room No. 522, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd. Bhavan, Vs 951 A, Rational House, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. Pan: Aafca6819F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Sh. Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. Advocate Sh. M. Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Sh. Yogesh Kamat, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.02.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Yogesh Kamat, CIT-DR

Section 133Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE MRS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Goldman Sachs (India) Dy.CIT-7(1)(1), Securities Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 522, Aayakar Bhavan, 951 A, Rational House, Vs M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. PAN: AAFCA6819F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Dy.CIT-7(1)(1), Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Room No. 522, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd. Bhavan, Vs 951 A, Rational House, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. PAN: AAFCA6819F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""य…

Goldman Sachs (India) Securities P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1115/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Yogesh Kamat, CIT-DR

Section 133Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

Swiss Re Global Business Solutions India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 397/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 133(6)

…o that of assessee even though assessee before us also carries out certain services on contract basis. Ld.AR has placed reliance upon decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Rampgreen Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 60 taxmann.com 355/234 Taxman 573/377 ITR 533 Hon'ble court had held that once a company falls into the category of high-end KPO, it cannot be functionally comparable with a BPO service provider like that of assessee. Applying this reissue in the present case, we direct Ld.AO to eliminate this comparable from final list.” 30. In view of the above order of the Tribunal, we are inclined to di…

Morgan Stanley Solutions India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 9(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 6522/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Manish Borad ()

…settled that these two companies are KPO service providers. This has been held in a number of judicial precedents including the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of 6 ITA 6522/Mum/2014 Rampgreen Solutions Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner of Income Tax 377 ITR 533 (Del). In our view, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has made a fundamental error by including these two companies in spite of the fact that he himself was satisfied that the assessee is not a KPO service provider. As regards Coral Hubs Limited (earlier, Vishal Information Technologies Limited), it is a fact on record that it has abnormally low emp…

Ge Capital Business Process Management Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 403/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 403/Del/2017 (A.Y 2012-13) (Through Physical Hearing) Sbi Business Process Vs Dcit Management Services Pvt. Ltd. Circle 10(1) Earlier Known As C. R. Building, I. P. Estate, Ge Capital Business Process New Delhi Management Services Pvt. Ltd. 401, 402, 4Th Floor, Aggarwal Millennium Tower, E- 1,2,3, Netaji Subhash Place, Wazirpur, New Delhi Pan: Aabcg0222E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 37(1)Section 92C(3)Section 92D

…ount of intangibles amounting to Rs.28.07 million. The Segmental details are not available. There is abnormal growth in revenue @ 38% in FY 2011-12 vis-a-vis FT 2010- 11. The Ld. AR relied upon following decisions:  Rampgreen Solutions (P) Ltd Vs CIT: [2015] 377 ITR 533 (Del HC) 8  Pr. CIT v Actis Global Services Pvt. Ltd: [Delhi High Court in ITA No. 417/2016, Order dated August 5, 2016] Pr.CIT v BC Management Services Pvt. Ltd: [2018] 403 ITR 55(Del HC)   Pr. CIT v evalueserve (SEZ) Gurgaon Pvt. Ltd: [Delhi High Court in ITA No. 241/2018, Order dated February 26, 2018]  Pr. CIT v H&S Software Development…

Morgan Stanley Advantage Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 9(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 625/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Sunil LalaFor Respondent: Shri A Mohan

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)

…ce provider which is not comparable to assessee; assessee is engaged in providing back office support services. In support of his submission, the Id. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Delhi High Court in Rampgreen Solution (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 377 ITR 533 (Delhi). The TPO included this comparable by taking his view that this company is in date process and analytical services. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the TPO by taking his view that this comparable company is into the health care receivable management and therefore renders ITeS services. The Hon'ble Delhi Court in Rampgreen Solution (…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai vs. Usv Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4915/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Mr. Rajan Vora, AR

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s USV Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner of Income Arvind Vithal Gandhi Chowk, Vs. Tax Central Circle 5(1), BSD Marg, Govandi, 19th Floor, Air India Building, Mumbai-400088. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020 PAN No. AAACU 1366 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 DCIT Central Circle 5(1), M/s USV Private Limited, R. No. 1928, 19th Floor, Air Vs. Arvind Vithal Gandhi Chowk, BSD India Building, Nariman Point, Marg, Govandi, Mumbai 400…