BUNGE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI V. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD)-9(2)(1), MUMBAI

CO 96/MUM/2019

AI Insights

The case involves the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD)-9(2)(1), Mumbai as the appellant and M/s Bunge India Pvt. Ltd. as the respondent. The dispute arose from the assessment order for the Assessment Year 2012-13, which included significant adjustments related to transfer pricing and foreign currency transactions. The Assessing Officer made various additions and disallowances, which were substantially reduced by the CIT(A). The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision, while the Assessee filed cross-objections. The Tribunal's decision focused on the appropriate method for transfer pricing adjustments and the treatment of foreign currency losses.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 113550 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 6 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 19-09-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: K
• Next Hearing Date: 13-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 04-03-2019
• Other Referred Cases: CIT v. Woodward Governor India P Ltd (312 ITR 254) (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Transfer pricing; International transaction; Rule of consistency; Question of law; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 37(1); 143(1); 143(2); 92CA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "K" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1499/MUM/2018 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax- (OSD)-9(2)(1), Mumbai, Rom No. 665A, 6 th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai - 400020 ................ Appellant M/s Bunge India Pvt. Ltd., The Capital, 601C & 601D, 6 th Floor, C-70, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 [PAN : AAACG7034K] Vs ................ Respondent CO No. 96/MUM/2019 Arising out of ITA No. 1499/Mum/2018) (Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/s Bunge India Pvt. Ltd., The Capital, 601C & 601D, 6 th Floor, C-70, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 [PAN : AAACG7034K] ................ Appellant The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax-(OSD)-9(2)(1), Mumbai, Rom No. 665A, 6 th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai - 400020 Vs ................ Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Department For the Respondent/Assessee : : Dr. Yogesh Kamat Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha Shri Vispi T Patel Shri Suresh Dhoot Date Conclusion of hearing Pronouncement of order : : 14.07.2023 20.09.2023 ITA No.1499/Mum/2018 (AY 2012-13) CO No.96/Mum/2019 (AY 2012-13) 2 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross-Objection filed by the Assessee arise from the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-55, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] passed on 13/12/2017 for the Assessment Year 2012-13, which in turn arose from the Assessment Order, dated 09/05/2016, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(3)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’]. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance made by the AO of Rs. 196,51,24,313/-on account of loss on foreign currency transactions by ignoring the CBDT Instruction no. 03/2010 dated 23 March 2010 wherein it is held that losses arising on account of year-end valuation of forex are to be disallowed on the ground that these are contingent and notional in nature. 2. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in deleting the disallowance made by the AO of Rs. 196,51,24,313/- by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Woodward Governor India P Ltd (312 ITR 254) (SC), the facts of which are distinguishable from the facts of the present case?" 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that addition to the extent of Rs. 71,94,88,139 is purely on account of calculation error. 4. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in not remitting or sending back the issue in respect of Forward Contract to the assessing officer for verification under rule 46A of the LT. Rules instead of accepting the said contention of the AR in respect of Forward Contract." 5. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A)erred in deleting the adjustment of Rs. 108,82,59,396/- ITA No.1499/Mum/2018 (AY 2012-13) CO No.96/Mum/2019 (AY 2012-13) 3 (109,00,88,470-18,29,074) out of Rs. 109,00,88,470/- u/s 92 CA of the Income tax Act, 1961, made by the Transfer Pricing Officer/ Assessing Officer, by upholding the CUP method adopted by the assessee and ignoring the fact that the TPO had applied TNMM method which has been upheld by the ITAT in the assessee's case for A.U. 2005-06, A.Y.2006-07 and A.Y. 2007- 08. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the AO be restored.” 2.1. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of Cross Objections: “1 The CIT(A) erred in confirming that the reference made by the Assessing Officer (AO) to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) is in accordance with section 92CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 2. The CIT(A) erred in not granting benefit of (+/-) 5 per cent available under the proviso to section 92C(2) of the Act. He, thus, erred in upholding the addition to the income of the respondent amounting to INR 18,29,074 towards import of raw materials, being the transfer pricing adjustment. 3. The CIT(A), without prejudice, erred in not holding that the international transactions of import of raw material carried out between the assessee and its AE are at ALP under the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) analysis carried out by the assessee. 4. The CIT(A), without prejudice, erred in not holding that the adjustment, if any under the TNMM, should be restricted only to the value of international transactions of the assessee.” 3. The Assessee is a company, at the relevant time, engaged in the business of oil seed crushing and refining and producing solvent oil, refined oil and Vanaspati. The above process gave rise to by- products such as soyabean meal and rapeseed meal, part of which was exported by the Assessee. The Assessee was also engaged in merchanting trade activity as the Assessee facilitated trading of ITA No.1499/Mum/2018 (AY 2012-13) CO No.96/Mum/2019 (AY 2012-13) 4 agricultural products like soyabean, corn, etc. without carrying out any marketing activity on back-to-back and no-risk basis. 4. For the Assessment Year 2012-13, the Assessee filed return of income on 28/11/2012 declaring total income of INR 221,24,50,850/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the case of the Assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued. 5. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the Assessee has entered into the international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AEs) exceeding INR 15 Crores and therefore, reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under Section 92CA(1) of the Act on 11/08/2014. The TPO, vide order, dated 27/01/2016, passed under Section 92CA(3) of the Act, proposed transfer pricing adjustment of INR 37,89,47,726/- to the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of the import transactions [import of raw materials – crude degummed soyabean oil, crude sunflower seed oil and RBD Palm Olein] from AEs in relation to its manufacturing activities. 6. The above transfer pricing adjustment of INR 37,89,47,726/- was incorporated in the Draft Assessment Order, dated 30/03/2016. In addition, the Assessing Officer also proposed disallowance of (a) INR 196,51,24,313/- on account of loss on foreign currency transaction, and (b) disallowance of INR 72,03,41,819/- on account of difference in forward contract gain. 7. Since the Assessee, vide letter dated 03/05/2016, had preferred not to approach Dispute Resolution Panel, the Assessing Officer passed Assessment Order dated 09/05/2016, under Section 143(3) read ITA No.1499/Mum/2018 (AY 2012-13) CO No.96/Mum/2019 (AY 2012-13) 5 with Section 144C(3)(a) of the Act assessing total income of the Assessee at INR 527,68,64,710/- after making following additions and disallowances: - Transfer Pricing Adjustment : INR 37,89,47,726/- - Loss On Foreign Currency Transaction : INR 196,51,24,313/- - Difference in Forward Contract Gain : INR 72,03,41,819/- 8. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) against the Assessment Order, dated 09/05/2016. The CIT(A) granted substantial relief to the Assessee. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance of INR 196,51,24,313/- on account of loss on foreign currency transaction, and also the disallowance of INR.72,03,41,819/- on account of difference in forward contract gain. As regard, transfer pricing adjustment of INR 37,89,47,726/-, the CIT(A) restricted the same of INR 18,29,074/-. Thus, the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the Assessee vide order, dated 13/12/2017. 9. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT(A), the Revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal while the Assessee has filed cross objection raising reproduced in paragraph 2 and 2.1 above. 10. We have heard both the sides and considered the rival submissions. We have also perused the material on record, including the order passed by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) as well as the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the Assessee cited during the course of the hearing. Ground No. 1 & 2 of Appeal by the Revenue 11. Ground No.1 & 2 raised by the Revenue in Appeal are directed against the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition of INR 196,51,24,313/- made by the Assessing Officer by disallowing loss ITA No.1499/Mum/2018 (AY 2012-13) CO No.96/Mum/2019 (AY 2012-13) 6 claimed by the Assessee in respect of foreign currency transactions. 12. The facts relevant to the adjudication of issue before us are that during previous year relevant to the Assessment Year 2011-12, the Assessee had debited INR 531,92,73,480/- towards ‘Net loss on Foreign Currency Transactions and Translations’ to the Profit & Loss Account which consisted of the follows: Description Amount (INR) Net (Gain)/Loss 1. Forward Premium Amortization: 1.1. Contracts realized during the year 4,23,65,79,190 1.2. Contracts outstanding as of 31st March 2012 1,79,72,82,159 6,03,38,61,349 2. Realised Loss/(Gain): 2.1. On Advance performance 61,64,01,436 2.2. On Export Receipts - 1,61,63,70,096 (99,99,68,660) 3. Closing Revaluation Loss (Gain) : 3.1. On Intercompany Accounts and LC payables 1,96,51,24,313 3.2. On Forward Contracts - 1,82,04,54,088 14,46,70,226 3.3. Cancellation of forward contracts 13,95,75,746 4. Others 11,34,819 5,31,92,73,480 13. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the Assessee had made purchase good/raw material in foreign currency from related parties some of which were back by Letter of Credit (for short ‘LC’). The intercompany payables and the LC liability were to be settled in foreign currency at a future date. Therefore, the Assessee obtained forward contracts for making payments towards intercompany payables as well as LCs to mitigate its liability against adverse currency market fluctuation. 14. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the Assessee was claiming ITA No.1499/Mum/2018 (AY 2012-13) CO No.96/Mum/2019 (AY 2012-13) 7 double deduction by claiming deduction for amortized amount of forward premium and also by claiming deduction for loss on restating liability to pay intercompany payments and LC liability in foreign currency as on 31/03/2012. The Assessing Officer was of the view that adverse/favourable movement in currency market would not affect the liability of the Assessee at the time of settlement of intercompany payables and LCs liability as the liability of the Assessee stood crystallized on taking forward contracts. The Assessee had claimed deduction for the closing revaluation loss (net) of INR 196,51,24,313/- on account of account of foreign currency fluctuation in relation to intercompany payables and LCs payables which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer as being fictitious. The Assessing Officer supported the aforesaid conclusion by relying upon Instruction No. 03/2010, dated 23/03/2010 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). 15. In appeal preferred by the Assessee on this issue, the CIT(A) granted relief to the Assessee and deleted the addition of INR 196,51,24,313/- holding as under: “3.4 Decision “I have considered the facts of the case and submissions made by the appellant. I find that the appellant is engaged in the business of manufacturing of edible oils and trading in agricultural products. In the course of its business, the appellant receives advances, imports goods and exports goods from / to foreign parties. Since the currency market is volatile in nature and in order to protect its sundry creditors, sundry debtors and LCs taken on imports from any adverse fluctuation in foreign currency, the appellant entered into forward contracts with respect to advances received, sundry debtors, sundry creditors and LCs payables and are recorded in books of accounts. This fact is observed by the Assessing Officer in the order. The difference between the spot rate on the date of import transaction and forward rate is considered as premium and such premium is amortised over a period of time of the forward ITA No.1499/Mum/2018 (AY 2012-13) CO No.96/Mum/2019 (AY 2012-13) 8 contract, i.e. debited to profit and loss on a pro-rata basis. The primary contention of the AR is that the company has followed accounting treatment as prescribed by AS 11 which has been recognised in the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in re. CIT vs. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd. (312 ITR 254) (SC). The Hon'ble SC has accepted the application of AS 11 for the preparation of accounts and consequently loss accounted in respect of the difference arising out of exchange rate prevailing on the date of transaction and the balance sheet date was held as an allowable deduction. Further, it has also been submitted by the AR that there was no addition on these grounds in earlier years and also in immediately subsequent assessment year, Le. AY. 2013-14 as well. It is the submission of the AR that the AO has allowed the said deduction in AY 2013-14 and the assessment is completed without any addition. The order of assessment for AY 2013-14 and preceding two previous years has been placed before me, to demonstrate the same. Thus, the appellant has placed reliance on the principle of consistency, which principle is also supported by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (394 ITR 449 (SC). Further, considering the accounting treatment laid down by AS 11, the appellant has restated its sundry creditors, sundry debtors, LCs and forward contracts as on the last day of the year i.e. 31 March 2012. Consequently, loss or gain on such restatement has been accounted for in the statement of profit and loss for the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer considered the submissions of the appellant and while the AO continued to tax the gain made on such restatement, it failed to allow the loss. After considering the principles laid down by various judgments and the facts of the case, the Assessing Officer has failed to consider the correctness of the claim of the appellant, as regards the restatement at the balance sheet date of the sundry creditors, sundry debtors and LCs amounting to INR 1,96,51,24,313. This method of accounting has been consistently followed by the appellant and has also been accepted in the past years and in the future years as well, i.e. AY 2013-14. Further, in the year under appeal, when similar treatment ITA No.1499/Mum/2018 (AY 2012-13) CO No.96/Mum/2019 (AY 2012-13) 9 resulted in an income of INR 1,82,04,54,088 on restatement of forward contracts taken for advances received, imports and exports, the same has been taxed. Thus, even on the principle of consistency and also regarding the treatment to transactions of similar nature, the appellant would succeed on this count also. Further, also considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Woodward Governor (supra), which clearly lays down that when the assessee consistently from year to year follows the method prescribed in AS 11, whereby the foreign exchange amounts are restated at the end of the year, such restatement which results in gain/loss is taxable/deductible, respectively. After analysing the totality of the issue, I am of the considered view that the appellant has followed AS11 for the transactions denominated in foreign currency and this method of accounting is the correct method to be followed and the appellant has been following this consistently in his accounting and so the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer does not stand good as regards restatement of the appellants Sundry Creditors, Sundry Debtors and LCs. This is not correct method and so disallowance made by the AO is deleted. So this ground of appeal is allowed.” 16. Being aggrieved by the above order of the CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before us. 17. We have considered the rival submission, perused the material on record and examined the position in law. 18. We note that the CIT(A) has returned a finding that the Assessee has, in accordance with the AS-11, restated its sundry creditors, sundry debtors, LCs and forward contracts as on the last day of the previous year i.e. 31 March 2012. Consequently, loss or gain on such restatement has been accounted for in the statement of profit and loss for the year under consideration. While the Assessing Officer has accepted and taxed the gain made on such restatement, the ITA No.1499/Mum/2018 (AY 2012-13) CO No.96/Mum/2019 (AY 2012-13) 10 Assessing Officer has denied deduction is respect of loss arising on account of restatement. We note that the CIT(A) has granted relief by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Woodward Governor (supra) wherein it has been held as under: “17. Having come to the conclusion that valuation is a part of the accounting system and having come to the conclusion that business losses are deductible under section 37(1) on the basis of ordinary principles of commercial accounting and having come to the conclusion that the Central Government has made Accounting Standard-11 mandatory, we are now required to examine the said Accounting Standard ("AS"). 18. AS-11 deals with giving of accounting treatment for the effects of changes in foreign exchange rates. AS-11 deals with effects of Exchange Differences. Under para 2, reporting currency is defined to mean the currency used in presenting the financial statements. Similarly, the words "monetary items" are defined to mean money held and assets and liabilities to be received or paid in fixed amounts, e.g., cash, receivables and payables. The word "paid" is defined under section 43(2). This has been discussed earlier. Similarly, it is important to note that foreign currency notes, balance in bank accounts denominated in a foreign currency, and receivables/payables and loans denominated in a foreign currency as well as sundry creditors are all monetary items which have to be valued at the closing rate under AS-11. Under para 5, a transaction in a foreign currency has to be recorded in the reporting currency by applying to the foreign currency amount the exchange rate between the reporting currency and the foreign currency at the date of the transaction. This is known as recording of transaction on Initial Recognition. Para 7 of AS-11 deals with reporting of the effects of changes in exchange rates subsequent to initial recognition. Para 7(a) inter alia states that on each balance sheet date monetary items, enumerated above, denominated in a foreign currency should be reported using the closing rate. In case of revenue items falling under section 37(1), para 9 of AS-11 which deals with recognition of exchange differences, needs to be considered. Under that para, exchange differences arising on foreign currency transactions have to be recognized as income or as expense in the period in which they arise, except as stated in para 10 and para 11 which deals with exchange differences arising on ITA No.1499/Mum/2018 (AY 2012-13) CO No.96/Mum/2019 (AY 2012-13) 11 repayment of liabilities incurred for the purpose of acquiring fixed assets, which topic falls under section 43A of the 1961 Act. At this stage, we are concerned only with para 9 which deals with revenue items. Para 9 of AS-11 recognises exchange differences as income or expense. In cases where, e.g., the rate of dollar rises vis-a-vis the Indian rupee, there is an expense during that period. The important point to be noted is that AS-11 stipulates effect of changes in exchange rate vis-a-vis monetary items denominated in a foreign currency to be taken into account for giving accounting treatment on the balance sheet date. Therefore, an enterprise has to report the outstanding liability relating to import of raw materials using closing rate of exchange. Any difference, loss or gain, arising on conversion of the said liability at the closing rate, should be recognized in the P&L account for the reporting period. 19. A company imports raw material worth US $ 250,000 on 15-1- 2002 when the exchange rate was Rs. 46 per US $. The company records the transaction at that rate. The payment for the imports is made on 15-4-2002 when the exchange rate is Rs. 49 per US $. However, on the balance sheet date, 31-3-2002, the rate of exchange is Rs. 50 per US $. In such a case, in terms of AS-11, the effect of the exchange difference has to be taken into P&L account. Sundry creditors is a monetary item and hence such item has to be valued at the closing rate, i.e., Rs. 50 at 31-3- 2002, irrespective of the payment for the sale subsequently at a lower rate. The difference of Rs. 4 (50-46) per US $ is to be shown as an exchange loss in the P&L account and is not to be adjusted against the cost of raw materials. 20. In the case of Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 116 ITR 1 this Court has observed as under : "The law may, therefore, now be taken to be well-settled that where profit or loss arises to an assessee on account of appreciation or depreciation in the value of foreign currency held by it, on conversion into another currency, such profit or loss would ordinarily be a trading profit or loss if the foreign currency is held by the assessee on revenue account or as a trading asset or as a part of circulating capital embarked in the business. But; if on the other hand, the foreign currency is held as a capital asset or as fixed capital, such profit or loss would be of capital nature. . . ." (p. 13) [Emphasis supplied] ITA No.1499/Mum/2018 (AY 2012-13) CO No.96/Mum/2019 (AY 2012-13) 12 21. In conclusion, we may state that in order to find out if an expenditure is deductible the following have to be taken into account (i) whether the system of accounting followed by the assessee is mercantile system, which brings into debit the expenditure amount for which a legal liability has been incurred before it is actually disbursed and brings into credit what is due, immediately it becomes due and before it is actually received; (ii) whether the same system is followed by the assessee from the very beginning and if there was a change in the system, whether the change was bona fide; (iii) whether the assessee has given the same treatment to losses claimed to have accrued and to the gains that may accrue to it; (iv) whether the assessee has been consistent and definite in making entries in the account books in respect of losses and gains; (v) whether the method adopted by the assessee for making entries in the books both in respect of losses and gains is as per nationally accepted accounting standards; (vi) whether the system adopted by the assessee is fair and reasonable or is adopted only with a view to reducing the incidence of taxation.” 19. We note that the CIT(A) has returned finding that the Assessee has been consistently following method of accounting and that in the earlier and subsequent years no similar addition has been made by the Assessing Officer. The Assessee has also offered to tax the gains computed/accounted by following the same system of accounting. The aforesaid findings retuned by the CIT(A) have not been controverted in the appellate proceedings before us. 20. Before us, the thrust of the arguments advanced on behalf of the Revenue was that the closing revaluation loss claimed by the Assessee was not real and that the Assessee had claimed double deduction. We do not find merit in the aforesaid contentions advance on behalf of the Revenue. In response to query from the Bench the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee explained the accounting treatment adopted by the Assessee by placing reliance on the Note filed on 14/07/2023 in support of the contention that the ITA No.1499/Mum/2018 (AY 2012-13) CO No.96/Mum/2019 (AY 2012-13) 13 Assessee has been consistently following the mandate of AS-11 and had not claimed double deduction. In our view, having accepted the gains of INR 1,82,04,54,088/- arising on restatement of forward contracts, the Revenue cannot be allowed to reject the loss on restatement of intercompany accounts payable and LCs payable as being fictitious. There is nothing on record to persuade us to take a different view of the matter. The reasoning given by the CBDT in Instruction No. 03/2010, dated 23/03/2010, for treating loss on restatement of unexpired contracts as at the last day of the relevant previous year has been rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) as well subsequent judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-4 Vs. International Gold Company Ltd. :[Income Tax Appeal No. 1827 of 2016, dated 27/02/2019]. Further, given the fact that no similar disallowance has been made in the preceding assessment years (i.e. Assessment Year 2012-13) or in the subsequent assessment year (i.e. Assessment Year 2013-14), as concluded by the CIT(A), the Assessee should succeed even on the principle of consistency. Ground No. 3 & 4 of Appeal by the Revenue 21. Ground No. 3 & 4 raised by the Revenue in Appeal is directed against the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition of INR 72,03,41,819/- pertaining to computation of Forward Contract Gains. 22. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that while restating the outstanding foreign exchange contract as at the balance sheet date (i.e. 31/03/2012), the Assessee had a gain of INR 182,04,54,088/- which was set off against the revaluation loss on inter-company accounts and LC payables. ITA No.1499/Mum/2018 (AY 2012-13) CO No.96/Mum/2019 (AY 2012-13) 14 23. According to the Assessing Officer, there was a calculation mistake in the computation of gain of INR 182,04,54,088/-. The Assessing Officer stated that by taking the exchange difference of closing rate as on 31/03/2012 and the spot rate the calculation of gain stood at INR 254,07,95,907/- as against INR 1,82,04,54,088/- computed by the Assessee. Accordingly, the differential amount of INR 72,03,41,819/- was added to the taxable income by the Assessing Officer. 24. The Assessee carried the issue in appeal before CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), it was contended by the Assessee that the difference of INR 72,03,41,819/- are on account of three reasons: (a) In the computation furnished by the Assessee for calculating the revaluation amounts, the gains were indicated in brackets and those without the brackets indicate losses. The losses calculated by Assessee were construed as gains by the Assessing Officer. This resulted in excess gains to the extent of INR 73,11,50,304/- computed by the Assessing Officer. (b) For calculation purposes, the Assessee had considered upto four decimals places for exchange conversion rates whereas the Assessing Officer confined the computation upto two decimals. Hence in the large volume of the transaction, there is difference of INR 62,02,544/- (c) In a transaction of JPY 1,65,34,21,189 Assessing Officer in the impugned order missed out a digit and instead considered JYP 16,34,21,189/- only. This resulted in difference in gain of INR 1,70,11,029/- ITA No.1499/Mum/2018 (AY 2012-13) CO No.96/Mum/2019 (AY 2012-13) 15 25. It was contended on behalf of the Assessee that all the above reasons were pointed out to the Assessing Officer but no action was taken on the same. The submissions made before the CIT(A) found favour with the CIT(A) who deleted the addition holding as under:- “4.4 Decision: I have considered the facts of the case and submissions made by the appellant. The primary contention of the appellant is that the total restatement loss (net) on account of restatement of forward contracts pertaining to export transactions outstanding as at 31st March 2012 were inadvertently treated as gains by the AO. The appellant has submitted that there has been an arithmetical error by the Assessing Officer while calculating the total addition. Consequently, the AO has treated loss as a gain and hence, has arrived at a total disallowance of Rs. 72,03,41,819. I have perused the submissions made by the appellant and verified the documents placed before me. I find that the Assessing Officer has erred in the calculation of exchange loss. Some part of the total addition is attributed to calculation differences wherein, the appellant had considered upto four decimals places for exchange conversion rates whereas the AO confined her computation by considering exchange rate upto two decimals. This has also been explained by the appellant vide its submission dated 08.06.2017. The AR of the appellant submitted that the above addition has resulted out of an error, Le. by treating loss as gain. On verification, addition to the extent of Rs. 71,94,88,139 has been explained and find that the same is purely on account of calculation error and that the same is deleted. Thus, based on the above facts, the disallowance is partly deleted to the extent of Rs. 71,94,88,139 and the ground of appeal is partly allowed.” 26. Thus, the CIT(A) granted relief to the extent of INR 71,94,88,139/- to the Assessee against which the Revenue is now in appeal before ITA No.1499/Mum/2018 (AY 2012-13) CO No.96/Mum/2019 (AY 2012-13) 16 us. 27. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The findings returned by the CIT(A) have gone uncontroverted in the appellate proceedings before us. We have perused the submissions filed by the Assessee before CIT(A) on 17/03/2017 (placed at page 283 to 298 of the paper-book) which support the findings returned by the CIT(A). In our view, no additional evidence was filed by the Assessee and therefore, the provisions of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules were not attracted in the facts of the present case. Even in Ground No. 4 raised by the Revenue it has been contended that the CIT(A) erred in accepting the ‘contention’ of the Authorised Representative. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A) deleting the addition of INR 71,94,88,139/- out of the total addition of INR 72,03,41,819/- made by the Assessing Officer. Ground No. 3 & 4 raised by the Revenue is, therefore, dismissed. Ground No. 5 of Appeal by the Revenue, and Ground No. 1 to 4 of Cross Objections by the Assessee 28. Ground No.5 raised by the Revenue in Appeal and Ground No. 1 to 4 raised by the Assessee in Cross-Objections pertain to the Transfer Pricing Adjustment of INR 37,89,47,726/- made by the Assessing Officer which was restricted to INR 18,29,074/- by the Assessing Officer. 29. The relevant facts in brief are that during the relevant previous year, the Assessee had entered into international transaction of import of raw material, being crude degummed soyabean oil, crude sunflower seed oil and RBD Palm Olein, from its AEs for use in manufacturing of different vegetable oils and allied products [hereinafter collectively ITA No.1499/Mum/2018 (AY 2012-13) CO No.96/Mum/2019 (AY 2012-13) 17 referred to as ‘Import Transactions’]. 30. The Assessee applied Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) as the most appropriate method to determine ALP of the Import Transactions. The Assessee used the market price in respect of import of crude degummed soyabean oil, crude sunflower seed oil and RBD Palm Olein on the relevant day as per Solvent Extractor’s Association (SEA) as CUP for benchmarking the Import Transactions. TPO noticed that in the preceding assessment years, the TPO has rejected CUP Method and adopted Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the Most Appropriate Method for benchmarking the transaction. Therefore, TPO asked the Assessee to show cause why TNMM should not be adopted as for benchmarking the Import Transactions. The Assessee filed reply, dated 20/01/2011, However, not being convinced, the TPO rejected CUP Method and adopted TNMM to benchmark the Import Transactions and proposed transfer pricing adjustment of INR 37,89,47,726/-. 31. Being aggrieved, the Assessee carried the issue in appeal before CIT(A). Following the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the Assessment Years 2006-07 to 2011-12, the CIT(A) concluded that the Assessee has correctly applied CUP Method for benchmarking the Import Transactions. However, the CIT(A) held that the benefit of Second Proviso to Section 92C(2) of the Act relating to (+/-) 5% variation would be available where more than one price is ‘determined’. Since the aforesaid condition was not satisfied in case of two transactions of import of crude degummed soyabean oil, and one transaction of import of crude sunflower seed oil from AEs, CIT(A) denied the benefit of Second Proviso to Section 92CA(2) of the Act and sustained transfer pricing adjustment to the ITA No.1499/Mum/2018 (AY 2012-13) CO No.96/Mum/2019 (AY 2012-13) 18 extent of INR 18,29,074/- (computed as under), which was computed as under, while deleting the balance. International Transaction Details Uncontrolled Transaction Determination of ALP* Adjustment Raw material Contract Date & Quantity (in MT) Rate USD/MT (CIF)(A) Unrelated entity/SEA Rate (USD/MT) Difference Between transaction in value & ALP Exchange Rate (INR/USD) Adjustment in INR Crude Degummed Soyabean Oil 06.05.2011 2,000 1,232 1,230 -0.18% 44.87 193,838 Crude Degummed Soyabean Oil 19.09.2011 1,000 1,322 1,295 -2.08% 45.90 12,62,151 Crude Sunflower Oil 27.12.2011 500 1,189 1,175 -1.18% 53.30 3,73,084 Total Adjustment 18,29,074 32. Being aggrieved by the above relief granted by the CIT(A), the Revenue has carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal while the Assessee has filed cross-objection seeking further relief in terms of Second Proviso to Section 92C(2) of the Act. On a without prejudice basis, the Assessee has challenged the adoption of TNMM as the most appropriate method; and the finding returned by the Assessing Officer that the Import Transactions were not at arm’s length as per TNMM Method. The Assessee has also contended that the transfer pricing adjustment should be restricted to international transaction only. 33. We note that in the case of the Assessee, the appeal for the ITA No.1499/Mum/2018 (AY 2012-13) CO No.96/Mum/2019 (AY 2012-13) 19 Assessment Year 2008-09 and 2009-10 were disposed off by the Tribunal vide common order, dated 08/04/2021 passed in ITA No. 7738/Mum/2012 & 4771/Mum/2015, Cross Objection Nos. 234/ Mum/2014 & 149/Mum /2015 [Reported in [2021] 127 taxmann.com 21 (Mumbai - Trib.)] holding as under: “5. The learned AR supported the adoption of CUP method by submitting that this method has been accepted in earlier as well as subsequent Assessment. Further, the benchmarking analysis carried out by the company was in accordance with provisions of Section 92C(1) read with rule 10B(1)(a) and having regards to benefit of tolerance range as available under second proviso to Section 92C(2) of the Act. It was also submitted that since the assessee was in possession of valid internal as well as external CUP, the said methodology was most appropriate method to benchmark the transactions. 6. However, the Ld.AR was confronted with Tribunal order for AYs 2005-06 to 2007-08 which upheld the application of TNMM to benchmark these transactions. In that eventuality, Ld.AR alternatively assailed the benchmarking done by Ld. TPO using TNMM method. It was submitted that the adjustments, if any, was to be restricted to the extent of international transactions carried out by the assessee only and not to the entire segment of manufacturing activity. The Ld. AR submitted that it the adjustments were so restricted, the margin would be within permissible limit of +5% and therefore, the additions would not be sustainable. The working of the same has been placed on record. The Ld. AR submitted that no adjustment shall remain as per the above calculation, duly following the Tribunal order in assessee‟s own case for AY 2005-06. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, assailed the impugned order by supporting the benchmarking done by Ld. TPO by adoption TNMM method. The Ld. DR drew our attention to para-10 of the Tribunal order. 7. We find that the impugned issue is recurring in nature in assessee’s case. The dispute as to adoption of most appropriate method as well as computation of margins etc. using TNMM method was the subject matter of revenue’s appeals as well as assessee’s cross-objections before this Tribunal in AYs 2005-06 to 2007-08 (ITA Nos.4336/M/2009 & ors. common order dated ITA No.1499/Mum/2018 (AY 2012-13) CO No.96/Mum/2019 (AY 2012-13) 20 18/05/2016). Upon perusal of the same, we find that this issue has been adjudicated by the Tribunal for AY 2005-06 in the following manner: - “7. Next two grounds deal with deleting of additions by the FAA with regard to import of raw material and related issues including the treatment to be given to the segmental accounts. During the TP proceedings, the TPO found that the assessee had entered into International Transaction relating to import of soyabean oil, palm oil and Palmoline oil as well as export of soya bean meal and rapeseed meal, that it had used CUP method with regard to the international transactions. However TPO was of the opinion that CUP was not the MAM. So, he applied TNMM. He drew segmented 8 account and examined the performance of segment other than MTA and other incomes. According to the TPO‟s working operating profit of the assessee was (- )6.94%. For applying TNMM he took 26 comparables but later on excluded 5.In response to the show cause notice issued by TPO, the assessee contended that it had correctly used the CUP method, that in the earlier two years TPO had accepted the said method for determining the ALP, that the rates of CUP with regard to import of crude oil could not be compared to rates of merchanting trade of the same commodity. The TPO observed under the TP Regulation ALP of a transaction could vary year to year depending upon economic conditions and comparability of the provisions, that CUP rates, applied by the assessee, were not exactly identifiable, that the same commodity was transacted at different rates in MTA, that assessee was not able to provide the resale margin of the crude oil sold in the local market, that soyabean meal was sold at a different rate as compared to the export to the AEs. 8. During the appellate proceedings, the FAA directed the TPO to submit a remand report. The TPO issued a show cause notice and proposed operating profit margin of Rs.2.92 crores to be applied on the operating income of Rs.806.56 crores as against assessee‟s operating loss of Rs.56.01 crores. After considering the submission of the assessee, the TPO re-worked the operating margin of comparable companies@ 2.63%. After making adjustment to the operating expenses (unutilized capacity and non operating expenses) of the assessee, the operating loss was reduced to Rs.29.54 crore. Accordingly, the mean operating margin of the comparables, i.e. 2.36% was applied to the operating ITA No.1499/Mum/2018 (AY 2012-13) CO No.96/Mum/2019 (AY 2012-13) 21 income of Rs.809.54 crore resulting in arms length profit of Rs.19.10 crore. He adjusted the loss, entered by the assessee, of Rs.29.54 crores and made an adjustment of Rs.48.65 crore to the import price. As a result there was an overall reduction in the import price of the assessee. As it was more than 5% (54.27%) allowable under the proviso to section 92C(2) of the Act, so, the assessee was not given the benefit. Before the FAA, it was argued that CUP was MAM, that the imports made were for its own consumption, that it was not possible for the assessee to identify specific shipment with consumption in manufacturing or re-sale, that the TPO had failed in applying CUP, that he had not brought any evidence or document to reject other comparable transaction as provided by the assessee, that while applying the TNMM he had not accepted all the adjustment proposed by the assessee, that the unutilized capacity in respect of power, fuel etc, was considered at nil as against 20% claimed by the assessee, that it resulted in a higher operating loss by Rs.3.81crore, that factory, salary and wages on account of under utilisation capacity was also taken at nil by the TPO as against 70% claimed by the assessee, that it resulted in a higher operating loss by about Rs.5.46 crore, that the depreciation on tangible assets and under utilisation resulted in higher loss of Rs.2.20 crore, that the deferred revenue expenditure of Rs.1.05 crores resulted in a reduction of operating expenses by Rs.1.05 crores, that the claim made by the assessee to accept revised margin of 1.07% was not conceded by the TPO. The FAA held that the computation of revised margin was not considered by the TPO, that TPO was not correct in his remand report that no reasons were given by the assessee for taking segmental results of six companies whereas whole company results for remaining 20 companies, that for rejecting the CUP method TPO had given valid reasons, that TNMM was more appropriate method with regard to adjustment to be made. The FAA held that the TPO in the remand report had summarily concluded that non operating expenses, resulting from abnormal items, were correctly accounted for, that the contention of the TPO was not factually correct, that the TPO 9 had allowed, while considering the claim for reduction of operating expenditure, due to unutilised capacity as abnormal depreciation on tangible assets, that he had adopted 50% of the total expenditure, that he had ITA No.1499/Mum/2018 (AY 2012-13) CO No.96/Mum/2019 (AY 2012-13) 22 considered the optimum capacity at 60% and not 100% that he had arrived at abnormal expense of 50% of total expenses by the assessee as against 70%. The FAA allowed Rs.3.81 crores under the head power and fuel, repairs and maintenance of building plant and machinery to the extent of 5/7th of the expenses and observed that the loss would be reduced by Rs.2.72crore.The FAA allowed Rs.5.46 crore under the heads salary and wages(5/7th of the expenses) further reducing the loss by Rs.3.90 crore. Deferred Revenue expenditure of Rs.1.05 crore was also allowed, increasing the loss by the same amount. The FAA re-worked the segment account to determine the ALP and arrived at the conclusion that there was a difference of Rs.43.07crore to the operating cost of the assessee. He observed that if the difference was to be allocated on import of goods from AEs, as done by the TPO, the adjustment would lead to an overall reduction of 31.15% to the import price of goods from the AEs. It was further observed by the FAA that while making adjustment to ALP of export vis-a-vis MTA the TPO had applied arithmetic mean of operating margin on cost on uncontrolled companies of 6.44%, that it was applied to international transaction of sale to the AEs, that same resulted in adjustment of 6.24% of the value, that the TPO had denied the benefit of proviso to section 92C(2),that when comparable trading companies „operating margin on cost of 0.94%was applied it was clear that assessee‟s OPM was higher than comparable margin, that the export to AEs was at arm‟s length, that the ALP for export was lower than the export recorded in the books of account, that the TPO had made adjustment vis-a-viz only the import of goods from the AEs, that manufacturing operations had resulted in loss after the assessee acquired various businesses during the year under consideration. The assessee had requested that adjustment of Rs.43.07crore should be spared over the total operating cost of Rs.790.44 crore after giving effect to ± 5% range. Finally, the FAA concluded that the adjustment made by TPO resulted in overall reduction to the import price of goods by 54%, that even after providing additional relief there was only partial reduction in the TP adjustment, that it went against the very principle of profit based method, that the adjustment had no consonance to the reality of the situation, that the TPO had approached an incorrect method, that the application of CUP analysis showed that fluctuation in prices of agricultural commodities was at maximum 5%,that adjustment of high discount of 54% or lower could not be ITA No.1499/Mum/2018 (AY 2012-13) CO No.96/Mum/2019 (AY 2012-13) 23 said to be in justifiable, that transfer pricing was not an exact science, that it was an art wherein principles of law, economics and business were applied to achieve equitable results, that application of CUP and TNMM gave very wide variation, that TNMM led to adjustment of 31.15% even after allowance of partial relief as compared to an adjustment under CUP of about 5%, that assessee was justified in claiming that while applying TNMM totality of the operations should be considered, that the exercise should not be centered on international transactions. After making above observations, the FAA reworked the ALP of international transaction of import of goods in manufacturing activity as under: Rupees Adjusted operating expenses of the assessee shown in (E) above. 7,90,44,26,285 105% of the above (applying ± 5% as per Proviso to Section 92C(2)- Arms length operating cost-(F) 8,29.96,47,599 Total Operating expenses of the assessee as per (B) above 8,33,51,92,616 Difference to be adjusted towards international transactions of import of goods from AEs assessee (F-B) assessee (G) (3,55,45,017) International transactions of goods imported from AEs – (H) 138,28,94,614 Arms length price of international transactions of goods imported from AEs assessee (H-G) assessee - (I) 134,73,49,597 On the basis of above adjustment, the import price of goods was determined at Rs.3.55 Crore as against Rs.48.65 Crores determined by the TPO. As a result, the assessee got a relief of Rs.45.09 Crores. 9. Before us, the DR relied upon the order of the TPO. The AR argued that the assessee had acquired DALDA brand from HLL, that the said acquisition would take some years to fructify, that the assessee had to be extra ordinary costs in that regard, that it had to incur significant start-up costs to establish the newly acquired brands in the initial years of ITA No.1499/Mum/2018 (AY 2012-13) CO No.96/Mum/2019 (AY 2012-13) 24 acquisition, it was not able to fully utilise its manufacturing capacity, that there was extraordinary unutilised capacity, that it had calculated revised margin of 20 comparables selected by the TPO and had arrived at the arithmetic mean of 1.07% (page 222 of the paper book),that the same was not considered by the TPO, that though the FAA had stated that revised margin (1.07%) had to be taken he had erroneously, by oversight, took 2.36% while calculating the adjustment, that if the correct margin(1.07%) of comparables was taken then the international transactions of the assessee of import of oil would be within the permissible limit of +/-5%, that TP adjustment should have been made only on international transactions, that the FAA had calculated the amount of adjustment to Rs. 3.55 crores, that if the correct margin of 1.07% of the comparables was adapted then the assessee‟s international transaction of import of oil would be within the permissible limit of+/-5%. 10. We find that the TPO had made an adjustment of Rs. 48.65 crores to the entire segment of manufacturing activities instead of making the adjustment to only international transactions, that it had an effect of reducing the import price by 54.27%, that the FAA had reworked the adjustment after considering the extra ordinary items that would affect the profit margin of the assessee for the year under consideration, that the factors like underutilisation of capacity and non-operating expenditure was given due importance by the FAA, that the assessee had calculated revised margin of the 20 comparables selected by the TPO, that the arithmetic mean arrived at by the assessee was not considered by him, that FAA had held that TPO was incorrect in not considering the revised calculation of margins, that the FAA had objected to the treatment given to the six comparable where the TPO had not taken the segments based on their economy profile, that the FAA had mentioned that revised margin (1.07%) had to be adapted for determining adjustments and the resultant ALP. In our opinion, the TPO was not justified in making adjustment to the entire segment of manufacturing activity and not restricting the same to the international transactions. We find that in the cases of Tara Jewels Exports Pvt. Ltd(ITA No.1814 of 2013) and Thyssen Krupp Industries India Pvt. ITA No.1499/Mum/2018 (AY 2012-13) CO No.96/Mum/2019 (AY 2012-13) 25 Ltd.(ITA No. 2201 of 2013),the honorable Bombay High Court has held that for making adjustment as per the provisions of chapter X of the act transaction with AEs of an assessee had to be considered. We would like to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgement of Thyssen Krupp Industries India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) “We find that in terms of chapter X of the Act, the determination of the consideration is to be done only with regard to income arising from international transactions on determination of ALP. The adjustment which is mandated is only in respect of international transaction and not transactions entered into by assessee with independent unrelated third parties. This is particularly so as there is no issue of avoidance of tax requiring adjustment in the valuation in respect of transactions entered into with independent third parties. The adjustment as proposed by the revenue if allowed would result in increasing the profit in respect of transactions entered into with non-AE. The adjustment is beyond the scope and ambit of chapter X of the Act. We find that while reworking the adjustment, the FAA had taken the margin at the rate of 2.36%.We find that the assessee had not filed any application before the FAA pointing out the apparent mistake in adopting the revised margin i.e. adopting the rate of 2.36% instead of rate of 1.07%.Considering these facts, we are of the opinion that matter should be restored back to the file of the AO/TPO to verify the fact and decide the value of the adjustment by taking appropriate revised margin rate. Grounds No 2 and 3 are decided accordingly.” 8. We find that revenue assailed the aforesaid adjudication of Tribunal before Hon‟ble Bombay High Court vide ITA Nos.445 of 2017, AY 2005-06; dated 03/06/2019 wherein Hon‟ble Court has refused to admit substantial question of law with following observations: “2. The issues arise out of the Tribunal's judgment concerning the correct method to be applied for determining arm's length price of the international transaction between the assessee and the associated enterprise. The Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO” for short) had made the adjustment to the entire segment of the manufacturing activity instead of making the adjustment ITA No.1499/Mum/2018 (AY 2012-13) CO No.96/Mum/2019 (AY 2012-13) 26 for only international transaction. The Tribunal held that the TPO was not justified in making adjustment to the entire segment of manufacturing activity without restricting the same to the manufacturing transaction. The Tribunal in the process relied upon and referred to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tara Jewels Exports P. Limited. The principles laid down in the said decision have been followed consistently in later decisions such as in cases of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. ThyssenKrupp Industries India P. Ltd. and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Alstom Projects India Ltd. In the result, do not find any error in view of the Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed.” Therefore, we find that the issue of adoption of TNMM and the issue of manner of TP adjustment which is to be done, as of now, has attained finality and the aforesaid decision is binding upon us. 9. Proceeding further, straightway going to the alternative plea of Ld. AR that even if TNMM method is accepted, the assessee‟s margin, after providing benefit of tolerance range of +5%, would be within Arm‟s Length Price. The working of the same has been placed in the paper-book. Keeping in view the earlier decision of Tribunal as referred to in paras 7 & 8, the bench is inclined to accept this plea. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the issue, we direct Ld. TPO to apply TNMM but restrict the adjustments only to the extent of international transactions carried out by the assessee and not to entire segment of manufacturing activity. The Ld. TPO is directed to verify the computations made by the assessee and decide accordingly. The benefit of tolerance range of +5%, as provided in law, would be available to the assessee. Consequently, the revenue‟s ground, to that extent, stands allowed which would render assessee‟s cross-objection infructuous.” (Emphasis Supplied) 34. On perusal of above, it can be seen that in the case of the Assessee for the preceding assessment years (i.e. Assessment Year 2005-06 to 2008-09) TNMM has been held to be the most appropriate method; the transfer pricing adjustment has been restricted to the International Transactions only and the benefit of tolerance range of ITA No.1499/Mum/2018 (AY 2012-13) CO No.96/Mum/2019 (AY 2012-13) 27 +/- 5% has been granted to the Assessee. 35. During the hearing, both the sides have agreed that the issues under consideration stand covered by the above decision of the Tribunal. Accordingly, for the Assessment Year 2012-13 we direct Assessing Officer/TPO to adopt TNMM as the most appropriate method and determine the ALP and compute the transfer pricing adjustment. It is clarified that the transfer pricing adjustment shall be restricted to the extent of international transactions carried out by the Assessee (as opposed to the entire segment of manufacturing activity). Further, the Assessing Officer/TPO is also directed to grant the benefit of tolerance range of +/-5% to the Assessee as provided in law. 36. In view of the above, Ground No. 5 raised by the Revenue in Appeal and Ground No. 4 raised by the Assessee in Cross Objections are allowed; Ground No. 1 & 3 raised by the Assessee in Cross Objections are dismissed; and Ground No. 2 raised by the Assessee in Cross Objections is dismissed as being infructuous. 37. In result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the Assessee are partly allowed. Order pronounced on 20.09.2023. Sd/- Sd/- (B.R. Baskaran) Accountant Member (Rahul Chaudhary) Judicial Member म ुंबई Mumbai; दिन ुंक Dated : 20.09.2023 Alindra, PS ITA No.1499/Mum/2018 (AY 2012-13) CO No.96/Mum/2019 (AY 2012-13) 28 आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आय क्त/ The CIT 4. प्रध न आयकर आय क्त / Pr.CIT 5. दिभ गीय प्रदिदनदध, आयकर अपीलीय अदधकरण, म ुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आिेश न स र/ BY ORDER, सत्य दपि प्रदि //True Copy// उप/सह यक पुंजीक र /(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अदधकरण, म ुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai