ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI V. ION TRADING INDIA P.LTD, NEW DELHI

ITA 2055/DEL/2022

AI Insights

ION Trading India Private Limited appealed against the final assessment order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, which included significant transfer pricing adjustments and disallowed deductions for donations made under CSR. The Tribunal examined the comparability of XS CAD India Private Limited, which was included by the Transfer Pricing Officer as a comparable company, and found it functionally dissimilar to ION Trading. Consequently, the Tribunal directed its exclusion from the comparables, which led to a reduction in the transfer pricing adjustment. Furthermore, the Tribunal addressed the issue of disallowed deductions under Section 80G, agreeing with precedents that CSR expenditures, even if mandatory, qualify for deductions under Section 80G if other conditions are met.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 295063 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Other Referred Cases: Emerson Electric Company (India) (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT, Teradata India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT Circle 3(1), Gurgaon, Interglobe Technology Quotient (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT, Alubound Dacs India (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DHARM VEER SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: PRASHANT MEHARCHANDANI; JAINENDER KATARIA
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction; Business expenditure; Charitable institution
• Section: 143(3); 13; 92CA; 234B; 37(1); 80G; 92D

Judgement Text

"1 ITA No. 2055/Del/2022/Del/2022 ACT Vs. ION Trading India Private Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2055/Del/2022 (A.Y. 2018-19) ION Trading India P. Ltd.A-136, defence Colony, south Delhi, New Delhi PAN: AAECA4325R Vs. ACIT Circle-10(1) New Delhi Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Prashant Meharchandani, Adv& Sh. Jainender Kataria, Adv Revenue by Sh. Dharm Veer Singh, CIT (DR) Date of Hearing 19/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement 25/04/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appealis filed by the Assessee against the final assessment order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 10(1), Delhi [‘Ld. ACIT’ for short] passed u/s 143(3) r.w. Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) dated 30/06/2022 pertaining to Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Grounds of Appeal are as under:- “I. General Ground: 1. On the facts and in law, the Ld. AO erred in 2 ITA No. 2055/Del/2022/Del/2022 ACT Vs. ION Trading India Private Limited -assessing the total income of the Appellant for the relevant AY at Rs. 33,45,10,076/- as against Rs 23,48,79,090/- returned income. -levying income tax including interest under Section 234B and 234C of the Act and raising a demand payable at Rs. 5,41,12,430 upon the Appellant. П. Transfer Pricing Grounds: Provision of Software Development Services: Adjustment - Rs 9,86,16,386 2. On the facts and in law, Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP'), the Ld. AO and the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO') erred in making the addition of Rs. 9,86,16,386 under Section 92CA(3) of the Act to the international transaction of 'Provision of software development services'. 3. On the facts and in law, the Hon'ble DRP, Ld. AO and Ld. TPO erred in modifying the economic analysis applied in the Transfer Pricing ('TP') documentation maintained by the Assessee u/s 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules'), without providing any cogent reason. 4. Erroneous rejection and selection of comparable companies 4.1 On the facts and in law, the Hon'ble DRP, Ld. AO and Ld. TPO, in contravention of the section 92C(3) of the Act read with Rule 10B(2) of the Rules, erred in rejecting the comparable companies selected by the Appellant in the TP documentation prepared and maintained in compliance with section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Rules. 4.2 On the facts and in law, the Hon'ble DRP, the Ld. AO and the Ld. TPO erred in violating the provisions of Rule 108(2) by introducing new companies as comparable to the Appellant without establishing their functional comparability, thereby resorting to unsubstantiated selection of comparable companies. 3 ITA No. 2055/Del/2022/Del/2022 ACT Vs. ION Trading India Private Limited 4.3.On the facts and in law, Ld. AO/Ld. TPO erred in rejecting comparable company, namely, Sasken Technologies Limited and E-Zest Solutions Limited, on export income filter (i.e., Accept comparables with Export Income 75%), pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble DRP, ignoring the fact that both the companies pass the aforesaid filter. 5. Incorrect computation of margin of comparable companies 5.1-Without prejudice to the above grounds, on the facts and in law, the Ed. AO/Ld. TPO erred in incorrectly computing the working capital adjusted operating profit margin of the comparable companies, pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble DRP. III. Corporate Tax Grounds: 6. Disallowance of deduction of Rs 10,14,600 under Section 80G of the Act 6.1. On the facts and in law, Hon'ble DRP /the Ld. AO erred in denying the deduction under Section 80G of the Act solely on the premise that amount has been paid as donation under Corporate Social Responsibility of the Assessee. 6.2. On the facts and in law, Hon'ble DRP /the Ld. AO erred in re- characterizing the nature of donations made by the Assessee and disregarded the established principle 'contributions paid with an oblique motive would not affect the character of the contributions as voluntary contributions. 6.3. On the facts and in law, Hon'ble DRP/the Ld. AO erred in opining that the element of charity was missing in the donations made by the Assessee leading to blatant disregard of the purposes of the trusts to which the donations were made. 6.4. On the facts and in law, Hon'ble DRP /the Ld. AO erred in law in holding that donations under section 80G of the Act have to be 'voluntary' in order to be eligible for deduction under section 80G of the Act 4 ITA No. 2055/Del/2022/Del/2022 ACT Vs. ION Trading India Private Limited IV. Consequential ground: 7. On the facts and in law, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in initiating penalty proceedings for under and misreporting of income under section 270A of the Act, mechanically and without recording any satisfaction for its initiation. 8. The Ld. AO has failed to appreciate the fact that the addition/disallowance made in the assessment order does not represent any under reporting' or 'misreporting' but is a mere difference in view. Each of the above grounds are independent and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal preferred by the Appellant.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the Assessee is incorporated in India and operates as a subsidiary of ION Trading UK Limited (\"ION UK\"). The Assessee is a captive software development services provider, engaged in providing generic, repetitive software development services involving development, maintenance, implementation and quality control of computer software relating to financial markets and financial instruments to ION Trading UK Ltd. During the year under consideration, the Assessee provided support services in relation to computer software development, quality assurance and customer support to ION UK Ltd. The Assessee provided software development services amounting to INR 138,07,97,523/- to ION UK Ltd. For the purpose of transfer pricing,the Assessee adopted Transactional Net Margin Method (\"TNMM\") as the Most Appropriate Method (\"MAM\") with 5 ITA No. 2055/Del/2022/Del/2022 ACT Vs. ION Trading India Private Limited Net Cost Plus (\"NCP\") as the Profit Level Indicator. The Assessee in its TP Study selected 9comparable and computed the unadjusted range of 8.63% (35th percentile) to 10.47% (65th percentile) with a median of 9.69%. Since the Assessee’s margins of 12.51% were more than the computed range, the transaction was considered to be at arm's length by the Assessee. 4. During the proceedings before the TPO, the Ld. TPO rejected four comparable which were selected by the Assessee in its TP study and introduced seven new companies as comparables. Accordingly, the Ld. TPO arrived at a range of 18.85% (35th percentile) to 25.01% (65thpercentile)with median of 19.90% and made transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 9,07,61,015/-. Further the Ld. A.O. has also made corporate tax adjustment of Rs. 10,14,600/- on account of disallowance of claim of donation made u/s 80G of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the Assessee filed objection before the DRP. The DRP vide its order dated 28/04/2022, directed to verify the Assessee’s claim in respect of two comparables i.e. E-zest Solutions Ltd. and Sasken Technologies Ltd. and further held that in so far as other comparable, no infirmity were found in the order of the Ld. TPO and also confirmed the corporate tax adjustment of Rs. 6 ITA No. 2055/Del/2022/Del/2022 ACT Vs. ION Trading India Private Limited 10,14,600/- proposed in the draft assessment order. Pursuant to the DRP directions, the Ld. TPO passed anorder on 24/06/2022 by giving effect to the DRP direction, wherein upheld the exclusion of E-Zest and Sasken Technologies Ltd. on the ground that those Companies failed export filter. The working capital adjustment was granted by the TPO and revised range was computed at 16.64% (35th percentile) to 23.07% (65th percentile) with median of 20.54%. Accordingly, revised adjustment to Rs. 9,86,16,386/-. A final assessment order came to be passed by the A.O. on 30/06/2022 by making an addition of Rs. 9,96,30,986/- to the income of the Assessee. Aggrieved by the final assessment order dated 30/06/2022, passed u/s 143(3) r.w. Section 144C(13), the Assessee preferred the present Appeal on the grounds mentioned above. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that Ground No. 1 is regarding levy of interest which is consequential and Ground No. 2 & 3 being general in nature, whichrequires no adjudication and thusnot pressed the Ground No. 1 to 3. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 to 3 of the Assessee are dismissed. 7 ITA No. 2055/Del/2022/Del/2022 ACT Vs. ION Trading India Private Limited 7. Ground No. 4 is regarding Transfer Pricing Adjustment of Rs. 9,86,16,386/- made u/s 92CA (3) of the Act to the international transaction of “provision of Software Development Services”. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, by exclusion of one comparable from the list of the comparable selected by the Ld. TPO in the Appeal effect order, the Assessee will be at Arm’s Length, thereby, all other remaining contentions on other comparables will become academic in nature. Thus, the Ld. Assessee's Representative made submission only one comparable Company i.e. XS CAD India Private Limited and contended that the said comparable is liable to the rejected on the ground of functional dissimilarity and non-availability of segmental. The Ld. Assessee's Representative submitted that the XS CAD India Private Limited is into IT enabled services linked to (computer aided design)sector within the construction and building services which is different from the software coding services provided by the Appellant. Further submitted that the snapshot of the website extracted software by Ld. TPO in his order shows that the company provides services design support pre-construction planning, building to information modelling 3D modelling and walk through services for building engineering consultants/contractors and fabricators, etc. The Ld. Assessee's Representative further submitted that, Company earns 8 ITA No. 2055/Del/2022/Del/2022 ACT Vs. ION Trading India Private Limited 94.94% revenue from CAD servicesand the Company's revenue from operations are A) CAD B) Training & Coaching C) Manpower recruitment D) Website Design & Development. 8. The Ld. Counsel also submitted that complete operations of the company have been treated as a single segment –‘Information Technology Services’. While the company performs diversified functions, it has only provided segmental information based on geographical location and no segment has been drawn for software development services. Further the Ld. Assessee's Representative relying on the order of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Emerson Electric Company (India) (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2023] 155 taxmann.com 165 (Mumbai - Trib.) (AY 017- 18/9 2017-18 sought for exclusion of XS CAD India Pvt. Ltd. on the basis of distinct functional profile and non-availability of segmental. 9. Thus, the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that if the above Company i.e. XS CAD India Private Limited excluded from the list of comparables, the Assessee will be at Arm’s Length. Therefore, sought for deleting the TP adjustment made by the A.O. 10. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the ‘XS CAD India Private Limited’is prominently into Software Development 9 ITA No. 2055/Del/2022/Del/2022 ACT Vs. ION Trading India Private Limited Services, which are similar to the Services provided by the Assessee and the said Company cannot be rejected because it performs only some functions that are commonly attributable to Software Development Services. The Ld. Departmental Representative relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities,prayed for retaining the XS CAD India Private Limited as comparable. 11. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The Ld. TPO held that XS CAD India Private Limited is functionally comparable to the Assessee and retained as a comparable company on the ground that the services provided by the Company are predominantly software development services, which are similar to the services provided by the Assessee. Further observed that, the said company cannot be rejected because it performs only some functions that are commonly attributable to software development services. It can be seen from the snap shot of web site extracted by the TPO in its order, that the said company provides design support pre-construction planning building informationmodeling, 3D modeling and walk throughservices for building engineering consultants/contractors and fabricators etc. The services rendered by the said company is entirely different from the software development services provided by the 10 ITA No. 2055/Del/2022/Del/2022 ACT Vs. ION Trading India Private Limited Assessee. Further XS CAD India Private Limited earns 94.94% revenue from the CAD Services, which can be corroborated from the financials produced at page no. 315 of the Paper book II. The Companies revenue are from operation are CAD, training and coaching, manpower recruitment and web-site design and development and the said company is engaged in providing ITes Services and products linked to CAD sector within the construction and building services. It is also notable fact that the complete operations of the said company have been treated as a single segment/Information Technology Services. While company performs diversified functions, it has also provided segmental information based on geographical location and no segment has been drawn for software development services, which can be corroborated form Page No. 341 of the Paper Book-2 for segmental. 12. The Co-ordinate bench of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Emersion Electric Company (India) (P) Ltd. (supra), held that XS CAD India Private Limited company cannot be good comparable in following manners: “17. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. From the perusal of the annual report of XS Cad India Private Limited for the financial year 2016-17, forming part of the paper book from pages 892-910, we find that this company earned income from the export and import of computer-aided design, training & coaching, manpower recruitment, web design, and 11 ITA No. 2055/Del/2022/Del/2022 ACT Vs. ION Trading India Private Limited development, during the year under consideration. From the segmental reporting in Note 23(v) to the financial statement of this company, we find that the segmental reporting of the company is based on the geographical location of the customer and accordingly country-wise, namely for USA, Canada, Australia, UK, Germany, and India reporting has been made by this company. Further, the company treats its complete operations as a single segment, i.e. \"Information Technology Services\". As noted above, the assessee has made relevant segment reporting in the notes to its financial statements. Since this company is earning revenue from various streams, therefore, in the absence of relevant segmental information, this company cannot be said to be functionally comparable to the assessee. Accordingly, we direct the TPO/AO to exclude XS Cad India Private Limited while benchmarking the international transaction pertaining to \"Provision of IT support and related services\". 13. Considering the above facts and circumstances and the reasons stated supra, XS CAD India Private Limited cannot be said to be functionally comparable to the Appellant, accordingly, we direct the TPO/A.O. to exclude excess XS CAD India Private Limited while benchmarking the international transaction pertaining to provisions of IT support and related services. 14. Since, the Ld. Assessee's Representative submitted that by excluding the XS CAD India Private Limited from comparables, the Assessee will be at Arm’s Length, accordingly, not canvassed any argument on the other comparable companies,thus, the Ground No. 4 is partly allowed. 12 ITA No. 2055/Del/2022/Del/2022 ACT Vs. ION Trading India Private Limited 15. The Ground No. 5 is regarding incorrect computation of margin of comparable companies. Since, we have excluded XS CAD India Private Limited from comparables the Ground No. 5 has becomes academic, accordingly, Ground No. 5 of the Assessee is dismissed. 16. Ground No. 6 is regarding corporate tax addition of Rs. 10,14,600/- made by the A.O. by disallowing the claim of donation made under 80G of the Act. 17. Facts in brief are that, the Assessee had donated Rs. 20,29,000/- to trust and societies registered u/s 80G of the Act for the purpose of compliance with the provisions of Companies Act, 2013 regarding CSR activities. In the return of income, the Assessee treated the same as inadmissible expenditure as per Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of the Act and claimed the same u/s 80G of the Act (i.e. 50% of Rs. 20,29,200/-). The Ld. A.O. rejected he entire claim of the Assessee holding that the sum paid by the Assessee missed the element of charity and the said payment was not made on a voluntary basis, but to fulfill mandatory requirement of law. 18. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the said issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Teradata India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT Circle 3(1), Gurgaon in 13 ITA No. 2055/Del/2022/Del/2022 ACT Vs. ION Trading India Private Limited ITA No. 1248 and 2337/Del/2022. Further, the Ld. Counsel has also relied on the order of Co-ordinate Bench of the Delhiin the case of Interglobe Technology Quotient (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2024] 163 taxmann.com 542 (Delhi – Trib.) and the order of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Alubound Dacs India (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 163 taxmann.com 536 (Mumbai Trib.)Thus, Thus, sought for deletion of the disallowance of corporate tax addition of Rs. 10,14,600/-. 19. Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that the donations made by the Assessee are in compliance with the provisions of Companies Act, 2013 regarding corporate social responsibility which cannot be construed as voluntary donation, therefore, the disallowance made by the A.O. requires no interference at the hands of the Tribunal. 20. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The issue regarding donation made to a Trust and Societies register under 80G of the Act for the purpose of compliance with the provision of Companies Act, 2013regarding CSR activities and the subsequent claim made u/s 80G of the Act has been decided by the Co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Tera data India Pvt. ltd. (supra) wherein it is held as under:- 14 ITA No. 2055/Del/2022/Del/2022 ACT Vs. ION Trading India Private Limited “16. It is not in dispute that contributions made by the assessee are made to eligible institutions which are enjoying exemption w/s 80G of the Act. The fact that those contributions were made only to eligible institutions are not in dispute before us. We find that all the institutions listed in the tabulation are enjoying exemption u/s 80G of the Act and accordingly, assessee would be entitled for deduction u/s 80G of the Act thereon, irrespective of the fact that it is made as part of CSR obligations. The assessee in the instant case had duly complied the provisions of Companies Act, 2013 read with CSR rules thereon and as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act had also voluntarily disallowed the CSR expenditure while computing the taxable income. Since, the donee institutions are eligible institutions enjoying exemption u/s 80G of the Act, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80G of the Act which is also provided in the statute itself to the assessee. Hence, denial of deduction u/s 80G of the Act to the assessee would result in gross injustice. We direct the ld AO to grant deduction u/s 80G of the Act to the assessee. Accordingly, the ground No. 6 to 6.6 raised by the assessee are allowed.\" 21. Further in the case of Inter global Technology Quotient (P.) ltd. (supra) the Co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal held as under:- “7.5 As with regard to the reasoning that CSR expenditure are not voluntary but mandatory in nature due to penal consequences, we are of considered view that voluntary nature of donation is by nature of fact that it is not on the basis of any reciprocal promise of donee. The CSR expenditures are also without any reciprocal commitment from beneficiary being philanthropic in nature. The Act permits deduction of donations as per Section 80G of the Act, even though, assessee is not gaining any benefit out of any reciprocity from donee. Similar isthe case of CSR expenditure. Thus, the reasoning of learned Tax Authority, the CSR expenditure is mandatory, does not justify disallowance of these expenditures u/s 80G, if other conditions of section 80G are fulfilled. There is no allegation of Revenue that other conditions of Section 80G are not fulfilled. We, thus sustain the ground.\" 15 ITA No. 2055/Del/2022/Del/2022 ACT Vs. ION Trading India Private Limited 22. The Mumbai Tribunal in the case of AluboundDacs India Pvt. ltd. (supra) held as under:- “11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The only moot question to be decided here is whether the expenditure towards CSR activities are an allowable deduction w/s. 80G of the Act. The CSR expenses are governed by section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013. Schedule VII of the Act and Companies (CSR) Policy Rules, 2014 where companies having net worth of Rs.500 crores or more or turnover of Rs. 1000 crores or more or net profit of Rs.5 crores or more have to mandatorily comply with the CSR provisions specified ws. 135(1) of the Companies Act, 2013. The above mentioned companies are liable to spend atleast 2% of its average net profit for the immediately preceding three financial years on CSR activities. In the present case, the assessee has contributed Rs.30 lacs to various educational and charitable trust for which the assessee has claimed 50% of the total donation paid as deduction w/s. 80G of the Act. Prior to the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, the said expenditure was claimed as 'business expenditure' u/s. 37(1) of the Act where after the insertion of Explanation 2 to section 37(1) of the Act, the CSR expenses referred to in section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013 shall not be deemed to be an expenditure incurred by the assessee for the purpose of business or profession. It is observed that the said expenses pertaining to CSR has been claimed as deduction w/s. 80G of the Act which claim was perennially rejected by the Revenue for the reason that only donations which are voluntary in nature will come under the purview of section80G of the Act and donation towards CSR was merely a statutory obligation on companies as per section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013. It is pertinent to point out that the intention of the legislature was clear when the same was clarified by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 that CSR expenses will not fall under the business expenditure and also there has been an express bar specified in sub clause (iiihk) and (iiihl) of section80G(2)(a) of the Act that any sum paid by the assessee as donation to Swatch Bharat Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund will not come under the purview of deduction w/s. 80G of the Act subject 16 ITA No. 2055/Del/2022/Del/2022 ACT Vs. ION Trading India Private Limited to certain conditions. This justifies the fact that the other donations specified u/s. 80G of the Act would be entitled to deduction provided the conditions stipulated w/s. 80G of the Act are satisfied. In the present case in hand, the contributions made by the assessee would not fall under the two exceptions specified above which clearly mandates that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction for the donations contributed during the year under consideration u/s.80G of the Act. The decision relied upon by the ld. A.O. in the case of PVGRaju, Raja of Vizianaram (supra) is distinguishable on the facts of the present case where there is no requirement of proving the voluntariness of the donation contributed by the assessee for claiming deduction u/s. 80G of the Act. The amendment brought about by Finance Act, 2015 to section80G of the Act which had inserted the sub clauses (iiihk) and (iiihl) to be the exception for qualifying a donation for claiming u/s. 80G of the Act could also be an evidencing factor to substantiate that CSR expenditures which falls under the nature specified in section 30 to 36 of the Act are an allowable deduction u/s. 80G of the Act. 12. On the above observation, we deem it fit to hold that the Assessee is entitled to deduction claimed u/s 80g of the Act towards the CSR expenditure incurred by it. We, therefore, direct the Ld. A.O. to allow the claim of the Assessee subject to the condition that the Assessee has satisfied the other requirements warranted u/s 80G of the Act. Hence, Ground No. 2 raised by the Assessee is allowed”. 23. By respectfully following the above judicial pronouncements, (supra), we are of the opinion that denial of deduction u/s 80G of the Act to the Assessee would resulting gross injustice, accordingly, we direct the A.O. to grant deduction u/s 80G of the Act if other conditions of Section 80G of the Act are fulfilled. Accordingly, we allow Ground No. 5 of the Assessee for statistical purpose. 17 ITA No. 2055/Del/2022/Del/2022 ACT Vs. ION Trading India Private Limited 24. In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th April, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (RAMIT KOCHAR) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 25.04.2025 R.N, Sr.P.S* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "