Gestamp Pune Automotive Pvt Ltd,(Formerly known as Sungwoo Gestamp Hitech Private Limited, Pune V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle - 9, Pune

ITA 2204/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2827 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 11-06-2019
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 21-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R D OMKAR
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Principle of natural justice; International transaction; Set aside

Judgement Text

] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM . / ITA NO.2204/PUN/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 GESTAMP PUNE AUTOMO TIVE PVT. LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SUNGWOO GESTAMP HITECH (PUNE) PRIVATE LIMITED), GAT NO.374, 517-521 AND 523, VILLAGE TAKAWE (BK), TAL-VADGAON, MAVAL, PUNE 412 106. PAN : AAMCS2106G. . / APPELLANT V/S THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 9, PUNE. . / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI R.D. OMKAR, C.A. REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJEEV KUMAR, CIT. / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PUNE 13 DATED 09.08.2017 FOR A.Y. 2011-12 AS PER THE GROUNDS OF A PPEAL ON RECORD. 2. THAT AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD.A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE APPRAISED THE BENCH THAT BROADLY THERE ARE THREE ISSU ES WHICH ARE / DATE OF HEARING : 11.06.2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 12.06.2019. 2 ITA NO.2204/PUN/2017 BEFORE THIS BENCH FOR ADJUDICATION I.E., (1) THE TRANSACTION AL NET MARGIN METHOD (TNMM) ADOPTED AS MOST APPROPRIATE METH OD (MAM) DISPUTED, (2) COMPARABLES DISPUTED AND (3) CAPACITY DISPUTED. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT SUNGWOO GESTAMP HITECH (PUNE) PVT. LTD. (SGHPL) IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFAC TURING OF SHEET METAL STAMPINGS AND ASSEMBLIES FOR AUTOMOBILE INDUS TRY. SGHPL ACQUIRES RAW-MATERIALS AND OTHER TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FROM IT S GROUP COMPANIES. THE SHEET METAL STAMPINGS AND ASSEMBLIE S OF SGHPL ARE USED IN THE MANUFACTURING OF VARIOUS MODELS OF G ENERAL MOTORS INDIA PVT. LTD. (GMI). THE COMPANY IS A JOINT VENTU RE OF SUNGWOO HITECH COMPANY LIMITED, KOREA AND GESTAMP PORTU GAL, LDA WITH EQUAL SHARE IN THE CAPITAL. DURING THE YEAR ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO FOLLOWING INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WITH ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES (A.ES.). NAME OF THE COMPANY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT METHOD SUNGWOO HITECH CO. LTD. PURCHASE OF ITEMS OF ASSEMBLY CKD MATERIALS 26,44,48,180 RPM I ZONE CO., LTD. I ZONE CO., LTD. PURCHASE OF ITEMS OF ASSEMBLY CKD MATERIALS 6,54,998 RPM SUNGWOO HITECH CO. LTD. LTD. PURCHASE OF ITEMS OF MACHINERIES, EQUIPMENTS, DIES, TOOLS, JIGS & FIXTURES 14,13,559 CPM I ZONE CO. LTD. PURCHASE OF ITEMS OF MACHINERIES, EQUIPMENTS, DIES, TOOLS, JIGS & FIXTURES 11,65,491 CPM SUNGWOO HITECH CO. LTD. PAYMENT OF ROYALTY FOR USE OF TECHNICAL KNOW HOW 3,786,931 CUP GESTAMP SERVICES S.L. PAYMENT OF ROYALTY FOR USE OF TECHNICAL KNOW HOW 3,786,931 CUP SUNGWOO HITECH CO. LTD. USE OF CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES 8,797,394 - SUNGWOO HITECH CO. LTD. PAYMENT OF BANK GUARANTEE FEE FOR LOAN AVAILED IN INDIA 6,042,750 - GESTAMP AUTOMOCION S.L. PAYMENT OF BANK GUARANTEE FEE FOR LOAN AVAILED IN INDIA 11,703,052 - TOTAL : 301,799,286 3 ITA NO.2204/PUN/2017 4. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SHEET MET AL STAMPINGS AND ASSEMBLIES OF COMPONENTS FOR AUTOMOBILE IND USTRIES. DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED COMPLETE K NOCK DOWN (CKD) MATERIALS OF RS.26,44,48,180/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS USED COMPARABLE UNCONTROLLED PRICE METHOD FOR DETERMINING ARMS LENGTH PRICE (ALP) OF THE TRANSACTIONS. IN THIS ANALYSIS, ASSESSEE HAS COMPUTED ITS OWN G.P. MARGIN WITH THAT OF THE MARK-UP FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE CKD MATERIAL FROM ITS A.E. DU RING TRANSFER PRICING PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE IS NO SUCH METHOD WHERE MARK-UP CHARGED BY THE A.E. IS COMPARED WITH G.P. REALIZED BY THE ASSESSEE FRO M UNCONTROLLED TRANSACTION. THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS LETTER DA TED 04.08.2014 STATED THAT COMPARABLE UNCONTROLLED PRICE METH OD (CUP) HAS BEEN USED AS MAM WHEREIN PRICE OF STEEL BEING THE BA SE INPUT USED IN IMPORTING CKD COMPONENTS VIS--VIS STEEL PURCHASE D BY THE ASSESSEE IN INDIA FROM THIRD PARTY HAVE BEEN COMPARED. THE SAID CONTENTION ITSELF IS NOT A VALID CONTENTION ACCORDING TO THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO) BECAUSE OF PRODUCT DIFFERENCE. THE TPO O BSERVED THE ASSESSEE IS IMPORTING CKD MATERIAL. THE PRICE OF STEE L USED FOR THE MANUFACTURING OF CKD MATERIAL CANNOT BE THE BASIS OF C UP DATA. CUP METHOD CAN BE CONSIDERED AS VALID METHOD ONLY IF THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED PRICE OF THE SAME PRODUCT SOLD BY ITS A.E. T O THIRD PARTIES (I.E., INTERNAL CUP) OR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED T HE PRICE OF THE SAME PRODUCT IN THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN TWO UNRE LATED PARTIES (I.E., EXTERNAL CUP). THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED SUCH DE TAILS. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT CUP METHOD IS THE MAM IS NOT CORRECT AND IS THEREFORE REJECTED BY THE TPO. ALTERNATIVELY, AO HAS ALSO 4 ITA NO.2204/PUN/2017 SELECTED RESALE PRICE METHOD (RPM) AS THE MAM. WITH REGAR D TO THIS SELECTION OF RPM AS A CORRECT METHOD, TPO OBSERVED ON A NALYZING THE T.P. STUDY REPORT THAT IT IS VERY CLEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ENGAGED IN THE RE-SALE ACTIVITY AND THE ASSESSEE HAD ENGAGED IN TH E ACTIVITY OF MANUFACTURING. THIS ISSUE OF MANUFACTURING VERSUS RESALE WAS AGAIN QUERIED TO THE ASSESSEE IN SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DAT ED 05.12.2014 AND REPLY WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS ON RE CORD. THAT ON CONSIDERING THIS REPLY, THE TPO FINALLY CONCLUDED THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE ASSESSEE HAS S TATED IN T.P.STUDY REPORT AND IN ORDER SHEET THAT THE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AKIN TO MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY AND BE NCH- MARKING OF THE SAME HAS BEEN DONE ON THAT BASIS ONLY. FOR BENCH- MARKING TNMM HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AS MAM. ON THIS ISSUE , THE LD.CIT(A) OBSERVED AND HELD AS FOLLOWS : 2.1.24 THE APPELLANT HAS TRIED TO EXPLAIN THAT TH E NATURE OF THE ACTIVITY CARRIED ON BY IT IS PROCESSING IN WHICH, I DENTITY OF THE GOODS DO NOT UNDERGO ANY CHANGE. IT MAY BE STATED THAT THE GUIDANCE CONTAINED IN THE PARA 229 OF THE OECD TRANSFER PRICING GUIDELINES 2010, ON US E OF THE RPM STATES THAT RPM IS NOT A RELIABLE METHOD WHEN WELDING OPERATIONS ARE CARRIED OUT. FURTHER, THE EXAMPLE GI VEN IN THE PARA 2.38 OF THE GUIDELINE STATES THAT ADJUSTMENTS MAY HAVE T O BE MADE TO THE MARGINS OF THE INDEPENDENT RESELLERS WHEN A TESTED PARTY, WHICH IS A SUBSIDIARY- SELLS IMPORTED GOODS AFTER CARRYING OUT TECHNICAL OPERATIONS ON IT. THESE PARAS OF THE OECD TRANSFER PRICING GUI DELINES, 2010 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 2.29 AN APPROPRIATE RESALE PRICE MARGIN IS EASIEST TO DETERMINE WHERE THE RESELLER DOES NOT ADD SUBSTANTIALLY TO TH E VALUE OF THE PRODUCT. IN CONTRAST, IT MAY BE MORE DIFFICULT TO U SE THE RESALE PRICE METHOD TO ARRIVE AT AN ARM'S LENGTH PRICE WHE RE, BEFORE RESALE, THE GOODS ARE FURTHER PROCESSED OR INCORPOR ATED INTO A MORE COMPLICATED PRODUCT SO THAT THEIR IDENTITY IS LOST OR TRANSFORMED (E.G. WHERE COMPONENTS ARE JOINED TOGET HER IN FINISHED OR SEMI-FINISHED GOODS). ANOTHER EX-AMPLE WHERE THE RESALE PRICE MARGIN REQUIRES PARTICULAR CARE IS WHE RE THE RESELLER CONTRIBUTES SUBSTANTIALLY TO THE CREATION OR MAINTENANCE OF INTANGIBLE PROPERTY ASSOCIATED WITH THE PRODUCT (E.G. TRADEMARKS OR TRADE NAMES) WHICH ARE OWNED BY AN AS SOCIATED ENTERPRISE. IN SUCH CASES, THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE GOODS ORIGINALLY TRANSFERRED TO THE VALUE OF THE FINAL PR ODUCT CANNOT BE 5 ITA NO.2204/PUN/2017 EASILY EVALUATED. 2.38 A COMPANY SELLS A PRODUCT THROUGH INDEPENDENT DISTRIBUTORS IN FIVE COUNTRIES IN WHICH IT HAS NO S UBSIDIARIES. THE DISTRIBUTORS SIM-PLY MARKET THE PRODUCT AND DO NOT P ERFORM ANY ADDITIONAL WORK. IN ONE COUNTRY, THE COMPANY HAS SE T UP A SUBSIDIARY. BECAUSE THIS PAR-TICULAR MARKET IS OF S TRATEGIC IMPORTANCE, THE COMPANY REQUIRES ITS SUBSIDIARY TO SELL ONLY ITS PRODUCT AND TO PERFORM TECHNICAL APPLICATIONS FOR T HE CUSTOMERS. EVEN IF ALL OTHER FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE SIMIL AR, IF THE MARGINS ARE DERIVED FROM INDEPENDENT ENTERPRISES TH AT DO NOT HAVE EXCLUSIVE SALES ARRANGEMENTS OR PERFORM TECHNI CAL APPLICATIONS LIKE THOSE UNDERTAKEN BY THE SUBSIDIAR Y, IT IS NECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHETHER ANY ADJUSTMENT MUST B E MADE TO ACHIEVE COMPARABILITY. 2.1.25 ON EXAMINATION OF THE APPELLANT'S FACTS, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT IS A MANUFACTURER MAKING SUBSTAN TIAL VALUE ADDITION TO THE IMPORTED MATERIAL. EVEN IF IT IS CONSIDERED THAT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT MADE ANY SUBSTANTIAL VALUE ADDITION, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO COMPARE THE SAME WITH THE PURE RESELLER WITHOUT MAK ING NECESSARY ADJUSTMENTS TO THE MARGINS OF THE COMPARABLE COMPAN IES. I DERIVE SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS OF THE HONOURA BLE ITAT, WHICH HOLD THAT THE RPM CAN BE APPLIED TO ONLY A PURE DIS TRIBUTION FUNCTION WITHOUT MAKING ANY VALUE ADDITION: I. ACIT V KOBELCO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT INDIA LTD (TS-299- 2017(DEL)-TP) II. NOKIA INDIA (P) LTD V DCIT (2014) 52 TAXMANN.COM 492 (DELHI-TRIB) III. DANISCO (INDIA) PVT LTD (TS-169-ITAT-2014(DEL) -TP) 2.1.26 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS AND DECISIO NS OF THE HONOURABLE ITAT, I CONSIDER THAT THE RESALE PRICE M ETHOD (RPM) IS NOT THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD IN THE FACTS OF THE CAS E. ACCORDINGLY, I AGREE WITH THE REJECTION OF THE RESALE PRICE METHOD AS DONE BY THE LEARNED TPO AND CONFIRM THE APPLICATION OF THE TNMM BY HIM. WITH THE RESULT, I CONFIRM THE ADJUSTMENT OF RS 13,00,63,586 MADE BY THE LEARNED TPO TO THE APPELLANT'S INTERNATIONAL TRANSA CTION OF IMPORT OF CKD MATERIALS. 5. WE HAVE PERUSED THE CASE RECORDS, HEARD THE RIVAL CO NTENTIONS AND ANALYZED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS CASE. THE FACTS ON RECORD DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN ITS T.P. STUDY REPORT HAS STATED THAT SGHPL HAS SET UP MANUFACTURING FACILITY AT PU NE, INDIA. IT IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING SHEET META L STAMPINGS 6 ITA NO.2204/PUN/2017 AND ASSEMBLIES OF COMPONENTS FOR AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRIES. SGH PL IS A DEDICATED SUPPLIER TO GMI. THE INITIAL IDEA OF INTRODUCIN G A NEW METAL IS CONSIDERED BY GMI. THE GMI SELECTS THE SUPPLIERS FOR THE MANUFACTURING OF VARIOUS COMPONENTS OF NEW AUTOMOBILE, ONE OF SUCH SUPPLIER IS SGHPL. THE AUTOMOBILE ENGINEERING RELATED SPECIFICATIONS, DESIGNS AND KNOW-HOW REST WITH GMI, WHEREAS SGHPL CARR IES OUT THE TECHNICAL FUNCTIONS IN THE MANUFACTURING OF ASSEMBLIES. THE TRANSFER PRICING STUDY REPORT CLEARLY MENTIONS THAT THE SGHPL MA NUFACTURE THE ASSEMBLIES REQUIRED BY THE GMI. SGHPL PROCESSES TH E RAW- MATERIAL FOR THE MANUFACTURING OF SHEET METAL STAMPINGS AND ASSEMBLIES IN ITS FACTORY. FURTHER, SGHPL SUPERVISES THE DIFFERENT MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS AND MAINTAINS THE FACTORY AND E QUIPMENTS AND ALSO PLANS THE INVESTMENT IN PLANT AND EQUIPMENT AN D HANDLES FINANCIAL NEEDS OF MANUFACTURING FUNCTIONS. THEREFORE, IT IS CLE AR THAT THE ASSESSEE CARRIES OUT THE MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS. THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS W HICH ACKNOWLEDGES THE FACT THAT THE IDENTITY OF THE CKD PARTS WERE NOT LOST OR WERE NOT DRASTICALLY TRANSFORMED BY THE PROCESSING C ARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. WITH REGARD TO THIS ISSUE, THE FACTS HAVE BEEN ANALYZED IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) ITSELF WHEREIN THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GONE THROUGH THE PARA NO.30.1.1 OF THE ORDER OF LD. ADDL. COMMIS SIONER, CUSTOMS, WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 2.1.16 THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF TH E ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, WHICH ACKNOWLEDGES TH E FACT THAT THE IDENTITY OF THE CKD PARTS WAS NOT LOST OR WERE NOT DRASTICALLY TRANSFORMED BY THE PROCESSING CARRIED OUT BY THE AP PELLANT. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PARA NO.30.1.1 OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ADDL.COMMISSIONER. THIS PARA IS REPRODUCED AS UNDE R : 30.1.1. WHERE THE IMPORTED GOODS UNDERGO SUBSEQUENT TO 7 ITA NO.2204/PUN/2017 THEIR IMPORTATION, MINOR PROCESSING WHICH DOES NOT ALTER THEIR ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS , THEN THE ROYALTY PAID WOULD STILL BE RELATED TO THE IMPORTED GOODS. IN THE INST ANT CASE , SUNGWOO INDIA HAS BEEN IMPORTING UNFINISHED SHEET M ETAL COMPONENT PARTS . THE IMPORTER MANUFACTURERS AUTOMOBILE COMPONENTS USING THIS IMPORTED RAW MATERIAL . IT IS . NOT THE CASE WHERE IMPORTED GOODS UNDERGO SIGNIFICANT PROCE SSING . HENCE THE ROYALTY PAID FOR TOWARDS. THE INTELLECTUA L PROPERTY RIGHTS , KNOW-HOW , AND TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION UNDER 'TA AGREEMENT' IS RELATED TO THE IMPORTED GOO DS . HOWEVER THE IMPORTER HAS ARGUED THAT THE PROCESS OF CONVERTING AN UNFINISHED METAL INTO A READY TO USE AUTOMOBILE COMPONENT HAS SIGNIFICANT VALUE ADDITION FOR THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS IN INDIA . BUT IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE SHEET METAL COMPONEN T IS BEING SUBJECTED TO A PROCESS OF PRESSING AND PUNCHING OF HOLES ONLY . THIS PROCESS MAKES IT SUITABLE TO BE USED AS AN AUTOMOBILE COMPONENT . HENCE THIS DOES NOT ALTER THEIR ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE IMPORTED MATERIAL . 6. THAT AFTER PROVIDING CONSIDERABLE THOUGHT TO THE ORDER OF ADDL. COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS, THE LD.CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE CO NCLUSION IS CONTRADICTORY. ON ONE HAND, HE HAS NOTED ASSESSEE S ARGUMENTS THAT THE PROCESS OF CONVERTING AN UNFINISHED METAL INTO R EADY TO USE AUTOMOBILE COMPONENT HAS SIGNIFICANT VALUE ADDITION. HOWEVER, THE ADDL.COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS HAS CONCLUDED THAT ITS PROCESS DOES NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE IMPORTED M ATERIALS. BOTH THESE FACTS ARE CONTRADICTORY. IN VIEW OF THESE CO NTRADICTIONS, THE LD.CIT(A) CONCLUDED THAT THE ORDER OF THE ADDL.COMMISSIO NER, CUSTOMS IS OF NO HELP TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN HAND AND WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND THAT ON THE ENTIRE EXAMINATION OF FACTS, WE CONFIRM THE APPLICATION OF TNM M METHOD AS THE MAM. 7. THE NEXT ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO THE COMPARABLES DISP UTED AND CAPACITY DISPUTED. THE TPO IN HIS ORDER HAS CONSIDERED TWO COMPARABLES (1) ASAL AND (2) J.B.M. AUTO. HOWEVER, WE FIND T HAT IN 8 ITA NO.2204/PUN/2017 THE ENTIRE ORDER OF THE TPO, NO DISCUSSION HAS BEEN MAD E AS WHY THESE TWO ENTITIES HAVE BEEN CHOSEN AS COMPARABLES WITH THAT OF THE ASSESSEE. NOTHING IS COMING OUT FROM RECORD AS TO THE R EASONING APPLIED BY THE TPO FOR SELECTING THESE ENTITIES AS COMPARA BLES. THIS SELECTION OF COMPARABLES IS DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ADJUDICATION BY THE TPO, WE ARE UNABLE TO VERIFY T HE FACTS. ON THIS SITUATION, BOTH THE SIDES AGREED THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF TPO FOR RE-ADJUDICATION WITH SPECIFIC FINDIN GS. WE HAVE ALREADY UPHELD THE TNMM METHOD AS MAM AND AS AGR EED BY BOTH THE PARTIES HEREIN WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE L D.CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE OF COMPARABLES DISPUTED RESTORING IT BACK TO THE FILE OF TPO/AO AND SIMULTANEOUSLY DIRECT THE TPO/AO SHALL APPLY TNMM ME THOD WHILE DETERMINING THE COMPARABLES AFTER APPLYING THE PRI NCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. SIMILARLY, THE ISSUE OF CAPACITY DISPUTED IS ALSO RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE TPO/AO. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 12 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019. SD/- SD/- (R.S. SYAL) (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHUR Y ) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE; DATED : 12 TH JUNE, 2019. YAMINI 9 ITA NO.2204/PUN/2017 !'#$%&%# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. 4. 5 6. CIT(A)-13, PUNE. PR. CIT-5, PUNE. '#$ %%&',)&', / DR, ITAT, A PUNE; $,-./ GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER //TRUE COPY // // TRUE COPY // /01%2&3 / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY )&', / ITAT, PUNE.