ASST CIT 11(1)(2), MUMBAI V. UPS JETAIR EXPRESS P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 1737/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8519 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: K
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 23-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANISH KUMAR SINGH
• Keywords: Depreciation; Transfer pricing
• Section: 143(3); 195

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL J BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M ANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1737 / MUM/2016 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 11 12 ) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 11(1)(2), MUMBAI . APPELLANT V/S UPS EXPRESS PVT. LTD. (EARLIER KNOW AS UPS JETAIR EXPRESS PVT. LTD.) PLOT NO.6 A, SHYAM NAGAR OFF JVLR, MAJAS VILLAGE JOGESHWARI (E), MUMBAI 400 060 PAN AAACU4322N . RESPONDENT CROSS OBJECTION NO.151/MUM./2016 ( ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 1737 / MUM/2016 ) ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 11 12 ) UPS EXPRESS PVT. LTD. (EARLIER KNOW AS UPS JETAIR EXPRESS PVT. LTD.) PLOT NO.6 A, SHYAM NAGAR OFF JVLR, MAJAS VILLAGE JOGESHWARI (E), MUMBAI 400 060 PAN AAACU4322N . CROSS OBJECTOR [ORIGINAL RESPONDENT] V/S ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 11(1)(2), MUMBAI . RESPONDENT [ORIGINAL APPELLANT] ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NITESH JOSHI REVENUE BY : SHRI MANISH KUMAR SINGH DATE OF HEARING 20 . 1 2 .2018 DATE OF ORDER 31.12.2018 2 UPS EXPRESS PVT. LTD. O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M. T HE AFORESAID APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28 TH JANUARY 2016, PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R/W 144C(13) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT ) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 12 IN PURSUANCE TO THE DIRECTION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL 2 (DRP), MUMBAI. 2 . GROUND NO.(I) IN REVENUES APPEAL AND GROUNDS NO.1, 2 AND 3 OF THE CROSS OBJECTION ARE ON THE ISSUES RELATING TO TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT. 3 . SHRI NITESH JOSHI, LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE , APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED LETTER DATED 20 TH DECEMBER 2018, BY THE ASSESSEE , WHEREIN , I T IS SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER IN RESPECT OF TECHNICAL KNOWHOW FEES , REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND MARK UP ON RECOVERY OF EXPENSES, HOWEVER, SINCE THE ENTIRE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT HAS BEEN DELETED AND THERE IS NO ADVERSE FINANCIAL IMPLICATION INVOLVED , THE GROUNDS RAISED ON TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT HAVE BECOME ACADEMIC IN NATURE IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, HENCE, THERE IS NO NEED TO ADJUDICATE THEM. 3 UPS EXPRESS PVT. LTD. 4 . SHRI M.K. SINGH, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO AGREED WITH THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE. 5 . HOWEVER, LEARNED COUNSEL S APPEARING FOR THE PARTIES SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE GROUNDS RELATING TO TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT BO TH IN THE APPEAL AND THE CROSS OBJECTION MAY BE KEPT OPEN FOR DECISION IF IT ARISES BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN ANY OTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR. 6 . WE HAVE PERUSED LETTER DATED 20 TH DECEMBER 2018, SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY T HE LEARNED COUNSELS APPEARING FOR THE RIVAL PARTIES. LEARNED DRP WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OFFERED TO TAX BY WAY OF SUBVENTION INCOME WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AS SET OFF AGAINST THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT PROPOSED BY THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER. THE DRP HAS OBSERVED THAT SINCE THE SUBVENTION INCOME OF ` 14,85,24,062, OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS MORE THAN THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT OF ` 7,88,80,708, PROPOSED BY THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER , THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT SHOULD BE NIL. IT IS NOTICED THAT WHILE IMPLEMENTING THE AFORESAID DIRECTION OF THE DRP IN THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28 TH JANUARY 2016, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY ADDITION ON 4 UPS EXPRESS PVT. LTD. ACCOUNT OF TR ANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT. THAT BEING THE CASE, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY BOTH THE PARTIES RELATING TO THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT ARE OF PURE ACADEMIC INTEREST IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO NEED TO DELIBERATE UPON SUCH ISSUES IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. HOWEVER, WE MAKE IT CLEAR, IF SUCH ISSUES ARISE IN ANY OTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR, IT IS OPEN FOR THE PARTIES TO RAISE SUCH ISSUES IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IRRESPECTIVE OF OUR DECISION IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR AND IF SUCH IS SUES ARE RAISED BY THE PARTIES IN ANY OTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR, THEY ARE TO BE DECIDED ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN MERITS AND DEPENDING UPON THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THOSE ASSESSMENT YEARS. WITH THE AFO RESAID OBSERVATIONS, GROUND NO.(I) IN REVENUES APPEAL AND GROUND S NO.1, 2 AND 3 IN ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION ARE DISMISSED. 7 . GROUND NO. (II) , OF REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF ` 9,99,922, MADE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(I) OF THE ACT TOWARDS PAYMENT MADE TO M/S. RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT SERVICES AS A COLLECTION VENDOR. 8 . BRIEF FACTS ARE, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID ` 9,99,922, TO UPS WORLDW IDE FORWARDING INC. FOR DEBTORS COLLECTION SERVICES FROM M/S. RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, USA. NOTICING THE ABOVE, THE 5 UPS EXPRESS PVT. LTD. ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN WHY DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(I) OF THE ACT SHOULD NOT BE MADE FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AS WAS DONE IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008 09 TO 2010 11. THOUGH, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE PAYMENT MADE ARE IN THE NATURE OF REIMBURSEMENT OF ACTUAL COST WITHOUT ANY PROFIT ELEMENT AND FURTHER , THE PAYMENT MADE IS NOT I N THE NATURE OF FEES FOR INCLUDED SERVICES UNDER ARTICLE 12 OF INDIA USA TAX TREATY, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND RELYING UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER S PASSED ON SIMILAR ISSUE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2008 09 TO 2010 11 DI SALLOWED THE AMOUNT OF ` 9,99,922, UNDER SECTION 40(A)(I) OF THE ACT. BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE AFORESAID DISALLOWANCE, THE ASSESSEE RAISED OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE DRP. 9 . T HE DRP AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING FOUND THAT IDENTICAL DISALLOWANCE MADE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 11 WAS DELETED BY THE DRP , FOLLOWED THE SAME AND DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR AS WELL. 10 . AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED , IDENTICAL DISPUTE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2008 09 AND 2009 10, AND THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE HAS HELD THAT NOT ONLY THE PAYMENT MADE IS IN THE 6 UPS EXPRESS PVT. LTD. NATURE OF REIMBURSEMENT WITHOUT ANY PROFIT ELEMENT BUT SUC H PAYMENT WILL NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF EITHER ROYALTY OR FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES UNDER THE ACT AS WELL AS UNDER INDIA USA TAX TREATY. ACCORDINGLY , THE TRIBUNAL HAS DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(I) OF THE ACT. 11 . THE LEARNED DEPARTMEN TAL REPRESENTATIVE FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 12 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACTS ON RECORD THAT WHETHER THE PAYMENT MADE TO UPS WORLDWI D E FORWARDING INC. AND M/S. RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT SERVICES ARE LIABLE FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX UNDER SECTION 195 OF THE ACT IS A RECURRING ISSUE BETWEEN THE PARTIES FROM THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR S . WHILE DECIDING IDENTICAL IS SUE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YE AR 2008 09, THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO S .3311 AND 3447/MUM./2013, HAS DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(I) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF SIMILAR PAYMENT OBSERVING AS UNDER: 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL C ONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. FROM THE RECORD, WE FOUND THAT INVOICES ISSUED BY UPSWWF ON ASSESSEE ARE MATCHED BACK TO BACK WITH THE INVOICES RAISED BY THE RMS. IT WAS A CLEAR CASE OF REIMBURSEMENT WITHOUT ANY PROFIT ELEM ENT. WE ALSO FOUND THAT THERE WAS MERE PROVISION OF SERVICES WHICH IS NOT ENOUGH FOR BRINGING TO SAME IN THE TAX 7 UPS EXPRESS PVT. LTD. NET. THE SERVICES SHOULD ALSO MAKE AVAILABLE TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE SKILL, EXPERIENCE, KNOW OR PROCESS. IF THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE MADE DIRECT PAY MENTS TO RMS FOR DEBTORS COLLECTION SERVICES IT DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF ROYALTIES OR FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES UNDER THE ACT AS WELL AS UNDER ARTICLE 13 OF THE INDIA USA TAX TREATY AND HENCE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 195 DOES NOT GET ATTRACTED. ACC ORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 40(A)(I) OF THE ACT. 13 . THE SAME VIEW WAS REITERATED BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING IDENTICAL DISPUTE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 10 VIDE ITA NO.1166/MUM./ 2014 & ORS. DATED 28 TH AUGUST 2015. T HERE BEING NO MATERIAL DIFFERENCE IN FACT BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE CONSISTENT VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THE ISSUE AS REFERRED TO ABOVE, WE UPHOL D THE DECISION OF THE DRP ON THIS ISSUE. GROUND RAISED IS DISMISSED. 14 . IN GROUND NO.(III), THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT MADE TO UPS WORLDWIDE FORWARDING INC. FOR LEGAL SERVICES PROVIDED BY TITUS INDIA. 15 . BRIEF FACTS ARE, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICING THAT IN THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID AN AMOUNT OF ` 17,05,828, TO UPS WORLDWIDE FORWARDING INC., FOR LEGAL SERVICES RENDERED BY TITUS INDIA WITHOUT DEDUCTING TAX AT SOUR CE , CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN WHY THE PAYMENT SHOULD NOT BE 8 UPS EXPRESS PVT. LTD. DISA LLOWED UNDER SECTION 40(A)(I) OF THE ACT, AS WAS DONE IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008 09 TO 2010 11. THOUGH, THE ASSESSEE FILE D A DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION OBJECTING TO THE PROPOSED DISAL LOWANCE, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOLLOWING THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY HIM IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER S PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2008 09 TO 2010 11, REJECTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. WHILE DOING SO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT UPS WORLDW IDE FORWARDING INC. IS ONLY A CONDUIT OR FACILITATOR FOR PAYMENT, HENCE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT EXONERATED FROM COMPLYING TO THE PROVISION OF SECTION 195 OF THE ACT R/W SECTION 9(1)(VII) AND EXPLANATION TO SECTION 9(2) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, HE DISALLOWED T HE PAYMEN T MADE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(I) OF THE ACT. CHALLENGING THE AFORESAID DISALLOWANCE, THE ASSESSEE RAISED OBJECTION BEFORE THE DRP. 16 . BEFORE THE DRP, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE PAYMENT WAS TOWARDS REIMBURSEMENT OF LEGAL EXPENSES AT COST WITH NO MARK UP. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS TO MAKE PAYMENT TO A THIRD PARTY VENDOR VIZ. TITUS INDIA FOR LEGAL SERVICES AVAILED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PAYMENT WAS INITIALLY MADE BY UPS WORLDWIDE FORWARDING INC. WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY REIMBURSED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACTUAL BASIS. AFTER CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE DRP FOUND THAT WHILE DECIDING IDENTICAL ISSUE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 11, IT HAS DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY 9 UPS EXPRESS PVT. LTD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION, THE DRP DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR AS WELL. 17 . AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITT ED THAT WHILE DECIDING IDENTICAL ISSUE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 09, THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO VERIFY WHETHER TITUS INDIA HAS ALREADY PAID TAX BY INCLUDING SUCH PAYMENT IN ITS INC OME AND IF IT IS FOUND SO, NO FURTHER TAX CAN BE COLLECTED FROM THE ASSESSEE. THUS, HE SUBMITTED , SAME DIRECTION MAY BE ISSUED IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR AS WELL. 18 . THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AGREED WITH THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 19 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS COULD BE SEEN FROM FACTS ON RECORD, THIS IS A RECURRING DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES FROM THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS. NOTABLY, WHILE DECIDING IDENTICAL ISSU E IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 09, THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.3311 AND 3447/MUM./2013, DATED 27 TH FEBRUARY 2015, HAS RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH CERTAIN DIRECTION S . THE SAME VIEW WAS REITERATED BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECI DING THE ISSUE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 10 IN ITA NO.1166 AND 1219/MUM./ 10 UPS EXPRESS PVT. LTD. 2014, DATED 28 TH AUGUST 2015. FACTS BEING IDENTICAL IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL AS REFERRED TO ABOVE, WE RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION KEEPING IN VIEW THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 09 AND 2009 10. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 20 . IN GROUND NO.(IV), THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE D ELETION OF DISALLOWANCE OF ` 1,99,227, MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION ON FIXED ASSET S PURCHASED FROM UPS WORLDWIDE FORWARDING INC. 21 . BRIEF FACTS ARE, IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE VERIFYING AS SESSEES CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION NOTICED THAT AN AMOUNT OF ` 1,99,227, WAS CLAIMED AS DEPRECIATION ON FIXED ASSET S PURCHASED FROM UPS WORLDWIDE FORWARDING INC. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 09. HE OBSERVED , WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 2008 09 DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THESE ASSETS WAS DISALLOWED. THUS, FOLLOWING THE SAME THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION CLAIMED OF ` 1,99,227, IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. WHILE DECIDING ASSESSEES OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE AFORESAID DISALLOWANCE, DRP HAVING FOUND THAT THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 09, HAS ALLOWED 11 UPS EXPRESS PVT. LTD. ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION, FOLLOWED THE SAME AND DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. 22 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED MATERIAL ON RECORD. FROM THE FACTS ON RECORD IT IS EVIDENT, THIS IS A RECURRING DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 09 ONWARDS. WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 09, VIDE ITA NO.3311 AND 3447/MUM./2013 DATED 27 TH FEBRUARY 2015, THE TRIBUNAL HAS UPHELD THE DECISION OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IN ALLOWING ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION. THE SAME VIEW WAS REITERATED BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 10, VIDE ORDER DATED 28 TH AUGUST 2015, IN ITA NO.1166 AND 1219/MUM./2014 AND IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 13, VIDE ORDER DATED 28 TH NOVEMBER 2018, IN ITA NO.2221/ MUM./2017. THEREFORE , FOLLOWING THE CONSISTENT VI EW OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THE ISSUE, WE ALLOW ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION BY UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE DRP . GROUND RAISED IS DISMISSED. 23 . GROUNDS NO.(V) AND (VI), BEING G ENERAL IN NATURE DO NOT REQUIRE ADJUDICATION. 24 . IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO.(II) , (III) AND (IV) OF REVENUES APPEAL, GROUND NO.(4) AND (5 ) OF THE CROSS OBJECTION HAVING BECOME REDUNDANT ARE DISMISSED. 12 UPS EXPRESS PVT. LTD. 25 . IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND CROSS OBJECTION IS DISMISSED. ORDER P RONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31.12.2018 SD/ - MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - SAKTIJIT DEY JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 31.12.2018 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : ( 1 ) THE ASSESSEE; ( 2 ) THE REVENUE; ( 3 ) THE CIT(A); ( 4 ) THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; ( 5 ) THE DR, ITAT, MUMBAI; ( 6 ) GUARD FILE . TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY (SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY) ITAT, MUMBAI