DCIT - 10 (3)(1), MUMBAI V. NETLINK SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 2021/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8405 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Third party statement; Sham transactions; TDS; Set aside; Bogus
• Section: 143(3); 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM ITA No. 2021/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2015-16) The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, 10(3)(1), 2 nd Floor, Room no.212, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. M/s Netlink Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd. 57, Laxmi Plaza, Laxmi Industrial Estate, New Link Road, Andheri West, Mumbai-400 069 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAACV3426V ITA No. 1657/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2015-16) M/s Netlink Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd. 57, Laxmi Plaza, Laxmi Industrial Estate, New Link Road, Andheri West, Mumbai-400 069 Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, 10(3)(1), 2 nd Floor, Room no.212, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : S/Shri Madhur Agarwal, Adv & Atul T. Suraiya, CA Department by : Shri C.T. Mathews, SR. AR Date of hearing: 22.02.2022 Date of pronouncement : 12.05.2022 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. These are the cross appeals filed by the assessee Netlink Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. (appellant/ assessee) (ITA Page | 2 ITA Nos. 2021 & 1657/Mum/2019 Netlink Solutions (I) Pvt. Ltd.; AY 15-16 No.1657/Mum/2019) and by the Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, 10(3) (1), Mumbai (the learned Assessing Officer) (ITA No.2021/Mum/2019) for Assessment Year 2015-16 against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai [CIT (A)] dated 28 th January, 2019. 02. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the assessment order passed under section 143 of the Act. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in upholding that the transactions entered into by appellant of shares of M.P. Polypropylene Ltd., Kappac Pharma Ltd., Kuwer Industries Ltd. and Secure Earth Technology Ltd. are not genuine and sham transactions. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in holding that the short term capita loss of ₹2,34,03,346/- in the shares of Kappac Pharma Ltd. Kuwer Industries Ltd. and Secure Earth technology Ltd. was also not genuine. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition of long term capital gain of ₹1,39,79,838/-, short term capital gain of ₹82,18,221/- and treating the same as income from other sources.” Page | 3 ITA Nos. 2021 & 1657/Mum/2019 Netlink Solutions (I) Pvt. Ltd.; AY 15-16 03. The learned Assessing Officer has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to take the net resultant profit/ loss on the entire non-genuine transactions i.e. capital loss of ₹12,05,287/- without appreciating that the transaction related to Long Term Capital Gain (₹ 1,39,79,838/-) and Short Term Capital Gain (₹82,18,221/-) being sham transactions, the assessee had introduced its own unaccounted money to that extent and also when later it had paid on account of Short Term Capital Loss (₹2,34,03,346/-), that too being sham transactions, had received back the cash to that extent; and as such the Assessing Officer has rightly made an addition of ₹2,21,98,059/- (LTCG of ₹1,39,79,838/- _+ STCG of ₹82,18,221/- and disallowed the bogus Short Term Capital Loss of ₹2,34,03,346/-“ 2. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the AO be restored. 3. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any grounds or add a new ground which may be necessary.” 04. Brief fact of the case shows that assessee is a company engaged in the business of website development, a domain registration services, service space booking, website maintenance, and publishing the magazines. It Page | 4 ITA Nos. 2021 & 1657/Mum/2019 Netlink Solutions (I) Pvt. Ltd.; AY 15-16 has also entered in to transaction of purchases and sales of shares and offered capital gain thereon. It filed its return of income on 12 September 2015 at ₹ nil. The return was picked up for scrutiny. 05. Assessment was passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 25/12/2017 determining total income of Rs. 2,00,39,275/-. The learned Assessing Officer found that assessee has claimed exemption on Long Term Capital Gain on sale of the shares amounting to ₹1,39,79,838/-. The learned Assessing Officer disallowed the exemption claimed by the assessee under section 10(38) of the Act. The assessee has also claimed a Short Term Capital Gain earned on the sale of shares amounting to ₹82,18,221/-. The Assessing Officer treated the same as income under the head other sources. The ld AO also disallowed Short term capital loss of Rs 2,34,03,346/- 06. Assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT (A). The learned CIT (A) in principle confirmed the action of the learned Assessing Officer. He noted that ₹1,39,79,838/- is a Long Term Capital Gain and ₹82,18,221/- is a Short Term Capital Gain. The learned Assessing Officer has also disallowed the Short Term Capital Loss of ₹2,34,03,346/- and therefore, there are double additions as Gain and Loss both are considered as income. He allowed netting off. Accordingly, he upheld the disallowance of net Capital loss of ₹12,05,287/-. Therefore, both the parties are in appeal before us. Page | 5 ITA Nos. 2021 & 1657/Mum/2019 Netlink Solutions (I) Pvt. Ltd.; AY 15-16 07. The only issue in this appeal is appeal genuineness of Long Term Capital Gain of ₹1,28,11,519/- and Short Term Capital gain of ₹82,12,221/- and also Short Term Capital Loss of ₹2,34,03,346/-. 08. Fact shows that assessee company claimed Long Term Capital Gain of ₹1,28,11,519/- and Short Term Capital Loss of ₹1,40,43,580/-. The details were called for and genuineness of the Long Term Capital Gain was to be examined. The Assessing Officer noted that in five companies, assessee has earned Long Term Capital Gain and in five companies, assessee has earned Short Term Capital Gain. He found that assessee has traded in M P Polypropylene Limited wherein assessee has earned Long Term Capital Gain of ₹1,39,79,838/- and Short Term Capital Gain of ₹82,18,221/-. The name of the company was changed to Alkyam Intellectual Properties Consultancy Limited and found that Bombay Stock Exchange has suspended the above company due to penal reasons. He further noted that the share price of the above company as on that date is ₹7.10 against the price at which assessee traded is ₹22 to ₹ 25 per share. In case of Kappac Pharma Limited, assessee has earned Short Term Capital Gain of ₹2,15,55,652/- and which is also suspended by Bombay Stock Exchange due to penal reasons. The current price of the above stock was ₹112.85 against the price trade by assessee in the range of ₹473 to ₹ 29. With respect to Kuwer Industries Limited wherein assessee has shown Short Term Capital Gain of ₹ 10,88,515/- which were also suspended by the Bombay Page | 6 ITA Nos. 2021 & 1657/Mum/2019 Netlink Solutions (I) Pvt. Ltd.; AY 15-16 stock exchange due to penal reasons. The current share price of the share was ₹6.52 per share against traded price by the assessee of ₹7.29 per share of ₹7.19 per share. In another company Secure Earth Technologies Limited, assessee has claimed Short Term Capital Loss of ₹ 7,59,189/- which is also suspended by Bombay Stock Exchange due to penal reasons and present price of the share is ₹ 2 against the traded price by the assessee of ₹15.63/-. Therefore, the learned Assessing Officer was of the view that assessee has used the route of stock exchange systematically to generate fictitious Long Term Capital Gain. He also noted the brief history of the above companies and thereafter-issued show cause notice to the assessee that why amount brought in the books as Long Term Capital Gain and Short Term Capital Loss should not be treated as unaccounted income earned from undisclosed sources. 09. Assessee explained that it has traded through its two brokers namely M/s Motilal Oswal Securities Limited and India Infoline Limited. It also produced broker’s note, ledger of the broker as well as contra confirmation of the broker. It also showed the Demat Account and bank statement for making payment and receipt of shares in the Demat Account. It was also stated that these are normal investment activities of the assessee. Assessee produced all available evidences of the trade. 010. The learned Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee and held as under :- Page | 7 ITA Nos. 2021 & 1657/Mum/2019 Netlink Solutions (I) Pvt. Ltd.; AY 15-16 “5.6 The reply of the assessee is considered carefully, however not acceptable on the followings: The assessee has contended that all the sales transactions of all the companies have been made through stock exchange and the payment had been received through cheque. It is the peculiarity of this case that the promoter, mediators and the beneficiaries have used all these institution in a very systematic manner to bring their ill gotten money in their books without making payment of single penny as tax to the exchequer. As stated above that the SEBI, which is a statuary body, established by the Government of India, in 1992 with a view to protect the interests of investors in securities and to promote the development of, and to regulate the securities market and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto has carried out detailed, in-depth & systematic investigation in the cases of certain companies which had been indulged in the business of creating artificial long term capital gain/ loss by maliciously rigging the price of its shares. The companies i.e. a. Alkyam Intellectual Properties Consultancy Limited (Formerly known as M P Polypropylene Limited) b. Kappac Pharma Limited c. Kuwer Industries Limited d. Secure Earth Technologies Limited Page | 8 ITA Nos. 2021 & 1657/Mum/2019 Netlink Solutions (I) Pvt. Ltd.; AY 15-16 In the shares of which the assessee has traded and claimed to have earned long term capital gain of 1,39,79,838/-, Short Term capital gain of Rs. 82,18,221/- and Short term capital loss of Rs. 2,34,03,346/-are one of such companies find out that the price of these companies had been manipulated artificially for the benefit of certain persons to create un genuine profit/loss as per their convenience. ii) The contention of the assessee that the share were acquired through stock exchange and the payments were made through banking channel is also not acceptable for the reason as mentioned above that in this scandal the promoters, mediators and the beneficiaries have maliciously used the system to create un-genuine profit /loss by rigging the price of the shares of the company. Therefore, the contention of the assessee that the transactions of sale of shares were made through stock exchange and the sale consideration had been received through banking channel does not suffice to prove that the said capital gain genuine capital gain. iii) All these facts establish that only payment made through cheque is not an ultimate evidence to prove the genuineness of a transaction as proved in the un-famous "Satyam Computer" scandal wherein it was proved that the company had claimed salary in the names of more than 10,000 bogus employees, to whom it had shown to have paid salary through cheque and further TDS had also been deducted. In the same way the contention of the assessee that all Page | 9 ITA Nos. 2021 & 1657/Mum/2019 Netlink Solutions (I) Pvt. Ltd.; AY 15-16 the payments were made through cheque and the payments of sale had also been received through cheque does not mean an ultimate evidence to prove the genuineness of the transactions. As stated above that it can be manipulated, when a well planned conspiracy is made and executed by using the statuary institutes with a sole intention to defraud the Exchequer from its legitimate right of tax. Reliance is placed on the rationale laid down by the Apex Court of India in the case of M/s. Kachwala Gems vs. JCIT (2006) 206 CTR (SC) 585, wherein the Apex Court has affirmed the view taken by the ITAT, Jaipur holding that even payment by account payee cheque is not sufficient to establish the genuineness of purchases. The primary onus is on the assessee to establish the genuineness of the purchases claimed by it. If the investigation done by the Department leads to doubt regarding the genuineness of the purchases, it is incumbent on the assessee to produce the parties along with the necessary documents to establish the genuineness of the transaction and payment by account payee cheque is not sacrosanct. 5.7 After considering the entire material, I am of the opinion that the purchases and sales of the shares of the above mentioned companies the group of certain person has systematically misused the system of the stock exchange to generate fictitious long term as well as short capital gain so as to convert their unaccounted income into accounted one with no Page | 10 ITA Nos. 2021 & 1657/Mum/2019 Netlink Solutions (I) Pvt. Ltd.; AY 15-16 payment of taxes as long term capital gain is tax exempt. From the facts and discussion made above it is clearly established that the exemption u/s 10 of the I.T. Act in respect of the long term capital gain, claimed to have earned by the assessee in the shares of Alkyam Intellectual Properties Consultancy Limited (formerly known as M P Polypropylene Limited) is nothing but the unaccounted income of the assessee. Also the short term capital loss that were created out of the various securities mentioned above, is just to make an adjustment of loss against the short term capital gain earned on the sale of securities. Hence the Long term capital gain of Rs. 1,39,79,838/- is added to the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration under the head 'Income from other sources and the short term capital loss that were arise on above securities is being disallowed amounting to Rs. 2,34,03,346/-. As the assessee company has claimed as short term capital gain, earned on the sale of security, namely Alkyam Intellectual Property Consultancy Limited (formerly known as M P Polypropylene Limited) amounting to Rs. 82,18,221/- under the head capital gain, the said income now treated as income under the head income from "other sources" as against the income from "capital gain" claimed by the assessee company.” 011. On appeal before the learned CIT(A), he upheld the order of the learned Assessing Officer on the ground of increase Page | 11 ITA Nos. 2021 & 1657/Mum/2019 Netlink Solutions (I) Pvt. Ltd.; AY 15-16 and decrease in price of shares tremendously in a very short span of time and the financials of listed companies do not commensurate with the price movement. He therefore held that ‘it may be easily concluded that the price of the above shares had been artificially hiked or lowered through circular trading in a complete violation of mechanism of stock exchange’. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC), he held that assessee has non-genuine capital gain or loss. However, he allowed the set off of the Capital Gain against Capital Loss and disallowed net capital loss of ₹12,05,287/-. Therefore, assessee as well as the learned Assessing Officer both are aggrieved and are in appeal by cross appeals before us. 012. Learned Authorised Representative submitted a Paper Book containing 434 pages. He referred to the computation of total income wherein the details of Long Term Capital Gain or loss has been given. He submitted that assessee has traded in 27 different scripts and only one script of M P Polypropylene Limited has been considered as bogus. He also referred to annexure of Short Term Capital Gain on losses wherein 56 transactions were entered into, however only 30 transactions 5 scripts were considered as bogus. He further stated that all the transactions are through stock exchange and carried at recognized stock exchange. He submitted that the transactions are supported by sale bills of the brokers and confirmations of stockbrokers were submitted. He further referred to that shares have been traded in Demat Page | 12 ITA Nos. 2021 & 1657/Mum/2019 Netlink Solutions (I) Pvt. Ltd.; AY 15-16 Account. Further, he submitted that in respect of Long Term Capital Gain the above shares remained in the Demat Account held for more than 12 months. He also referred to the ‘Bhav copy’ of Bombay Stock Exchange stating that assessee has traded in these scripts at prevailing market price. In view of this, assessee has completely discharged onus cast upon it. He further stated that there is no evidence against the assessee that any unaccounted income is earned. It was further stated that mere price movement in the share cannot go against the assessee. He further stated that assessee is a public listed company engaged in purchase and sales of shares for last so many years and all the transactions are through stock exchange. He also stated that there is no dealing with any of the tainted person or accommodation entry or exit provider. Therefore, he submitted that the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer and confirmed by learned CIT (A) is purely on conjunctures and surmises. He further referred to the copies of the account of the brokers as well as the contract notes and bank account along with Demat statements to show the above transactions. He therefore submitted that assessee has discharged its onus completely and the addition made by the Assessing Officer deserves to be deleted. He further stated that the decision relied upon by the learned CIT(A) of Hon'ble Supreme Court does not apply to the facts of the case because in the present case the transactions are supported by the ‘Bhav copies’ of the stock exchanges. He further stated that the decision relied upon by the co- Page | 13 ITA Nos. 2021 & 1657/Mum/2019 Netlink Solutions (I) Pvt. Ltd.; AY 15-16 ordinate bench relates to the set off of losses arising out of capital gain earned of VDIS. 013. With respect to the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer, he relied upon Para no. 5 of the order of the learned Commissioner of income tax (Appeal). He submitted that the learned CIT (A) has merely granted the set off profit and loss considering the allegedly non- genuine transactions. 014. The learned Departmental Representative vehemently supported the order of the lower authorities. The learned Departmental Representative further referred to the judicial precedence relied upon by the lower authorities and submitted that the mere documents and transactions through stock exchange and banking channel cannot prefer the genuineness of the above transactions. Hence, it was submitted that the addition made by the lower authorities is correct and may be upheld. 015. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The fact shows that assessee company in its computation of income has shown Long Term Capital Gain on sale of shares amounting to ₹1,28,11,519/- consisting of 27 different transactions in 5 different companies. Out of the 27 transactions in 12 transactions, there is a Long Term Capital Loss on sale of shares and in balance transactions; there is a Long Term Capital Gain. The net Long Term Capital Gain of ₹1,28,11,519/- was claimed as exempt under section 10(38) of the Act. The assessee has also Page | 14 ITA Nos. 2021 & 1657/Mum/2019 Netlink Solutions (I) Pvt. Ltd.; AY 15-16 incurred Short Term Capital Loss of ₹1,40,43,580/- consisting of 56 transactions of different companies out of them in 25 transactions assessee has incurred Short Term Capital Loss and in 31 transactions assessee has earned Short Term Capital Gain. Out of the above transactions, the learned Assessing Officer in Long Term Capital Gain stated that in M P Polypropylene Limited assessee has earned Long Term Capital Gain of ₹1,39,79,838/- which is bogus. To arrive at this conclusion, he was supported by the fact that the present status of the above company’s trading was suspended by BSE due to penal reasons and current share price of the share is much lower than the transactions price entered into by the assessee. He found that after the change in the name of the above company there is share capital of ₹4,61,39,600/-. However, the main reasons were stated in paragraph no. 5.3 of the assessment order. He was of the view that SEBI has initiated special investigation in more than 181 companies and according to the SEBI report black money has been unearthed which has been converted into Long Term Capital Gain through stock exchange without payment tax, same is the case with companies where assessee has also earned Short Term Capital Gain. He therefore held that assessee has systematically misused the system of stock exchange to generate fictitious Long Term Capital Gain as well Short Term Capital Gain. The Assessing Officer has also noted that four companies in which assessee has earned Long Term Capital Gain or Short Term Capital Gain Page | 15 ITA Nos. 2021 & 1657/Mum/2019 Netlink Solutions (I) Pvt. Ltd.; AY 15-16 are part of the SEBI investigation report. Such companies were i. Alkyam Intellectual Properties Consultancy Limited ii. Kappac Pharma Limited iii. Kuwer Industries Limited iv. Secure Earth Technologies Limited. We find that assessee has supported all these transactions by the sale bill and purchase bill of M/s Motilal Oswal Securities Limited and India Infoline Limited, confirmation of brokers, bank statement where from payments are received and paid and demat accounts through which shares moved in /out. The assessee also produced the Demat account wherein the shares were held for more than 12 months in case of Long Term Capital Gain and other shares were routed through Demat account. The dates on which the assessee transacted were also supported by the Bhav copy of the Bombay Stock Exchange. None of these evidences produced by assessee was controverted. Assessing Officer has neither carried out in inquiry in respect of these transactions that whether the assessee acquired shares through fraudulent means nor sold those shares to exit providers. Merely because, there is a movement in the shares price downward or upward compared to the price at which transactions took place cannot be the reason for making the addition in the hands of the assessee. Further, merely because of the Page | 16 ITA Nos. 2021 & 1657/Mum/2019 Netlink Solutions (I) Pvt. Ltd.; AY 15-16 reason that those scripts are suspended by Bombay Stock Exchange for later on period cannot make the transactions bogus, which are entered into by the assessee in earlier period. There is no finding or reference about any entry provider or exit provider or generation of unaccounted money in the hands of the assessee. Contrary to that assessee has produced overwhelming evidences to show that the transactions are genuine. None of the evidences was found to be bogus. The fact also shows assessee has Short Term Capital Gain allegedly from tainted companies of ₹1,40,43,580/- and Long Term Capital Gain of ₹ 1,28,11,519/- resulting into net capital loss of ₹12,05,287/-. In absence of any further finding or evidences by the LD Lower authorities, it is also highly unusual to believe that assessee obtained net capital loss for converting its unaccounted income. Even otherwise, assessee has carried forward the Short Term Capital Loss of ₹1,07,30,523/- to subsequent assessment years and has unabsorbed Long Term Capital loss of ₹37,76,217/- pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15. To prove the transactions bogus, it is duty of lower authorities to examine all evidences, which are produced discharging assessee’s initial onus, by making inquiries, call brokers for examination, examine sources from which those shares are acquired and who are the exit providers to the assessee. None of these exercises is carried out by LD AO and addition is made purely on the basic of those companies mentioned in SEBI report. Even the findings of SEBI report was not used for making addition. Further, Page | 17 ITA Nos. 2021 & 1657/Mum/2019 Netlink Solutions (I) Pvt. Ltd.; AY 15-16 the price transacted by assessee is in AY 2015-16 and price compared by the LD AO is of 2017. Further LD AO also did not make any inquiry about reason for suspension of trading of these companies through stock exchange to examine that whether assessee is involved in transactions leading to suspension of the scripts. In view of the above facts and more particularly that there is no inquiry made by the learned Assessing Officer to throw onus back on the assessee by negating various evidences placed before him, the addition stands merely on conjunctures and surmises. The learned Assessing Officer also failed to show any in connivance of the assessee in either price movement of shares or in the suspension of trading of those shares directly or indirectly of the assessee. In this case, no doubt the burden of proof lies on the assessee but assessee has successfully discharged the same. In cases where addition is required to be made under section 68 of the Act, there is no evidence against the assessee, which it has failed to rebut. It is also the fact based on evidence produced by the assessee; the Assessing Officer has acted unreasonably in taxing the above sum. Further, with respect to reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sumati Dayal (supra), we find that it is misplaced because of the five reasons given in the facts of that case. In the present case, the assessee has entered into transactions in different scripts out of which some of the transactions are accepted and some of the transactions are not accepted. The assessee has not given any explanation or evidence, which can be said to be Page | 18 ITA Nos. 2021 & 1657/Mum/2019 Netlink Solutions (I) Pvt. Ltd.; AY 15-16 wild, contrary to statistical theories and experience of frequent years and probabilities. The books of account of the assessee shows the trade of purchase and sales which are held for substantially long period. In view of this, we hold that transactions entered into by the assessee could not be proved sham transactions as no evidence contrary to the evidences produced by the assessee were brought on record by the Revenue. Accordingly, we hold that the Short Term Capital loss of ₹2,39,03,346/-, Long Term Capital Gain of ₹1,39,79,838/- and Short Term Capital Gain of ₹82,18,221/- are genuine and supported by proper evidences. Accordingly, ground nos. 2, 3 and 4 of the appeal of the assessee are allowed. 016. Ground nos. 1 and 5 of the appeal are general in nature and hence, dismissed. 017. Coming to the cross appeal of the learned Assessing Officer, in view of our decision in appeal of the assessee, we dismiss ground no.1 of the appeal. 018. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12.05.2022. Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) ( PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Mumbai, Dated:12.05.2022 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : Page | 19 ITA Nos. 2021 & 1657/Mum/2019 Netlink Solutions (I) Pvt. Ltd.; AY 15-16 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai