ITO 8(1)(4), MUMBAI V. GOLDEN SOURCE INDIA P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 393/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4233 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 3 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: K
• Next Hearing Date: 03-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 16-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Wholly owned subsidiary
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL K BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 393 / MUM . /2014 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 09 10 ) INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 8(1)(4), MUMBAI . APPELLANT V/S GOLDEN SOURCE INDIA PVT. LTD. 1 ST FLOOR, 13 A, PAPER BOX ESTATE MAHAKALI CAVES ROAD, ANDHERI (E) MUMBAI 400 096 PAN AAACF8190M . RESPONDENT ITA NO.667/MUM./2014 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 09 10 ) GOLDEN SOURCE INDIA PVT. LTD. 1 ST FLOOR, 13 A, PAPER BOX ESTATE MAHAKALI CAVES ROAD, ANDHERI (E) MUMBAI 400 096 PAN AAACF8190M . APPELLANT V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 8(1)(4), MUMBAI . RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : SHRI JEEVAN LAL LAVIDIYA ASSESSEE BY : SHRI AJIT KUMAR JAIN A/W SHRI SIDDHESH CHAUGULE DATE OF HEARING 19.02.2019 DATE OF ORDER 10.05.2019 2 GOLDEN SOURCE INDIA PVT. LTD. O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY. J.M. A FORESAID CROSS APPEALS ARISE OUT OF THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 26 TH DECEMBER 2013, PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R/W SECTION 144C(13) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT 'THE ACT' ) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 10, IN PURSUANCE TO THE DIRECTIONS O F THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL I (DRP), MUMBAI. ITA NO.393/MUM./2014 REVENUES APPEAL 2 . IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE DECISION OF LEARNED DRP IN EXCLUDING GENESY S INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION LTD. AND INFINITE DATA SYSTEMS LTD., FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES SELECTED BY THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER. 3 . BRIEF FACT S ARE, THE ASSESSEE , AN INDIAN COMPANY , IS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF GOLDEN SOURCE CORPORATION, USA. AS STATED BY THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER , THE ASSESSEE IS INVOLVED IN PROVIDING SOFTWARE SERVICE INCLUDING CODING , INTEGRATION AND TESTING, ETC., TO IT S A SSOCIATED ENTERPRISE (AE) ONLY. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ASSESSEE IS A CAPTIVE SERVICE PROVIDER. IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER DISPUTE, THE ASSESSEE PROV IDED SERVICES TO ITS OV ERSEAS AE AND EARNED REVENUE OF ` 20,42,05,216 . IN THE TRANSFER PRICING STUDY REPORT, THE 3 GOLDEN SOURCE INDIA PVT. LTD. ASSESSEE BENCH MARKED THE INTER NATIONAL TRANSACTION WITH THE A ES BY APPLYING TRANSACTIONAL NET MARGIN METHOD ( TNMM ) AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD WITH NET COST PLUS MARGIN (OPERATING PROFIT / TOTAL COST RATIO) AS THE PROFIT LEVEL INDICATOR (PLI). FOR THE PURPOSE OF BENCH MARKING THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE, THE ASSESSEE SELECTED 10 COMPANIES AS COMPARABLE WITH ARITHMETIC ME AN OF 14.93% BEFORE WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT. SINCE THE MARGIN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AT 12.03% BEFORE WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT WAS WITHIN 5% RANGE OF THE ARITHMETIC MEAN OF THE COMPARABLES , THE ASSESSEE CLA IMED THE PRICE CHARGED TO THE A ES FOR PROVISI ON OF SOFTWARE SERVICE TO BE AT ARM'S LENGTH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT THE TRANSFER PRICING STUDY REPORT AND THE COMPARABLE S SELECTED BY THE ASSESSEE . O UT OF THE 10 COMPARABLES SELECTED, THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER ACCEPTED SEVEN WHI LE REJECTING THREE COMPARABLES. FURTHER, THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER , ON HIS OWN , SELECTED NEW COMPARABLES AND THE FINAL SET OF COMPARABLES SELECTED BY THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER COMPRISED OF 11 COMPANIES WITH ARITHMETIC MEAN OF 26.95%. APPLYING THE ARI THMETIC MEAN OF SELECTED COMPARABLES, THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER ULTIMATELY DETERMINED THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE OF THE SOF TWARE SERVICE PROVIDED TO THE A ES AT ` 23,13,96,112, RESULTING IN AN UPWARD ADJUSTMENT OF ` 2,71,90,896 TO THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE SHOW N BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ADJUSTMENT PROPOSED BY THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER WAS 4 GOLDEN SOURCE INDIA PVT. LTD. ADDED BACK IN THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER. AGA INST THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER ASSESSEE RAISED OBJECTION S BEFORE LEARNED DRP. 4 . THE MAJOR GROUND OF CHALLENGED BEFORE LEARNED DRP WA S WITH REGARD TO SELECTION / REJECTION OF COMPARABLES AND NON CONSIDERATION OF ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT. LEARNED DRP AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CONTEXT OF FACTS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD , GRANTED PARTIAL RE LIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY EXCLUDING TWO OF THE COMPARABLES SELECTED BY THE TRAN SFER PRICING OFFICER VIZ. GENESY S INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION LTD. AND INFINITE DATA SYSTEMS LTD. 5 . THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED , GENESY S INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION LTD., IS IN THE SAME LINE OF BUSINESS AS THE ASSESSEE. DRAWING OUR ATTENTION TO THE FUNCTIONAL PROFILE OF THIS COMPANY AS DESCRIBED IN THE ANNUAL REPORT , A COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK, LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THIS COMPANY IS ALSO PROVIDING SOFTWARE SERVICE. THOUGH, IT MAY BE INVOLVED IN SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT IN DIFFERENT AREAS. THUS, HE SUBMITTED , THE COMPANY BEING FUNCTIONALLY SIMILAR TO THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN RETAINED AS A COMPARAB LE. INSOFAR AS INFINITE DATA SYSTEMS LTD. IS CONCERNED, LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED , IT IS A COST PLUS ENTITY LIKE THE ASSESSEE AND IS ALSO INVOLVED IN DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SOFTWARE. IN THIS CONTEXT, HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE ANNU AL REPORT OF THE COMPANY PLACED IN THE PAPER 5 GOLDEN SOURCE INDIA PVT. LTD. BOOK. THUS, HE SUBMITTED , THE COMPANY BEING FUNCTIONALLY SIMILAR TO THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE RETAINED AS COMPARABLE. 6 . THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED , GENESY S INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION LTD. CANNOT BE TREATED AS A COMPARABLE SINCE IT IS INTO DIVERSIFIED ACTIVITIES , SUCH AS , PROVIDING GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SERVICE (GIS) COMPRISING OF PHOTOGRAMMETRY, REMOTE S ENSING , C ARTOGRAPHY , DATA CONVERSION AND OTHER COMPUTER BASED RELATED SERVICE. IN THIS REGARD, HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE FUNCTIONAL PROFILE OF THE COMPANY AS DESCRIBED IN THE ANNUAL REPORT. FURTHER , DRAWING OUR ATTENTION TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE COMPANY, LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED , SEGMENTAL DATA RELATING TO VARIOUS SE GMENTS ARE NOT AVAILABLE. THUS, HE SUBMITTED , THE COMPANY CANNOT BE TREATED AS COMPARABLE. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH, IN LION BRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. V/S ITO, ITA NO.668/MUM./2014 & ORS., DATED 18 TH NOVEMBER 2015. A S REGARDS COMPARABILITY OF INFINITE DATA SYSTEMS LTD. IS CONCERNED, LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED , THIS COMPANY IS NOT FUNCTIONALLY COMPARABLE TO THE ASSESSEE , AS , IT IS ENGAGED IN DIVERSIFIED ACTIVITIES INCLUDING PROVIDING SOLUTIONS ENCOMPASSING TECHNICAL , CONSULTING , DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SOFTWARE, MAINTENANCE, SYSTEM INTEGRATION, IMPLEMENTING, TESTING AND 6 GOLDEN SOURCE INDIA PVT. LTD. INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT SERVICE. IN THIS CONTEXT, HE DREW OUR ATTENTI ON TO THE FUNCTIONAL PROFILE OF THE COMPANY AS DESCRIBED IN THE ANNUAL REPORT PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK. FURTHER, HE SUBMITTED , THE COMPANY EARNS REVENUE FROM TECHNICAL SUPPORT AND INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT SERVICE. HOWEVER, SEGMENTAL BREAK UP ARE NOT AVAIL ABLE. IN THIS CONTEXT, HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE COMPANY. THUS, HE SUBMITTED , THE COMPANY CANNOT BE TREATED AS A COMPARABLE. 7 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS REGARDS THE COMP ARABILITY OF GENESIS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION LTD. IS CONCERNED, ON A PERUSAL OF THE FUNCTIONAL PROFILE OF THE COMPANY DESCRIBED IN THE ANNUAL REPORT , IT IS NOTICED THAT THE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN DIVERSIFIED ACTIVITIES INCLUDING GEOSPATIAL SERVICE AND CONTENT PROVIDER. IT IS ALSO INVOLVED IN 3D MAPPING, GIS , CONSULTANCY, PHOTOGRAMMETRY AND REMOTE SENSING S ERVICE, IMAGE PROCESSING, UTILIT Y SERVICES, TELECOMMUNICATION AND VARIOUS OTHER ACTIVITIES . THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE COMPANY ALSO REVEALS THAT SEGMENTAL DATA RELATING TO VARIOUS SEGMENTS ARE NOT AVAILABLE. LOOKING AT THE AFORESAID FACTUAL POSITION, LEARNED DRP HAS HELD THAT THIS COMPANY CANNOT BE TREATED AS A COMPARABLE TO THE ASSESSEE DU E TO FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCE. NOTABLY, THE MUMBAI BENCH IN LION BRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) WHILE EXAMINING THE COMPARABILITY OF 7 GOLDEN SOURCE INDIA PVT. LTD. THIS COMPANY TO A SOFTWARE SERVICE PROVIDER IN THE VERY SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR , HAS HELD THAT DUE TO ITS FUNCTIONAL PROFI LE ARISING OUT OF DIVERSIFIED ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON BY IT, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS A COMPARABLE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE CO ORDINATE BENCH, WE UPHOLD THE DECISION OF LEARNED DRP IN EXCLUDING GENESY S INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION LT D. FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. 8 . INSOFAR AS INFINITE DATA SYSTEMS LTD. IS CONCERNED, ON A CAREFUL ANA LYSIS OF ITS FUNCTIONAL PROFILE AS DESCRIBED IN THE ANNUAL REPORT , IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON BY THIS COMPANY IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM THE ASSESSEE . THOUGH , THE COMPANY IN COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES MAY BE PROVIDING SOME SERVICES IN THE CATEGORY OF SOFTWARE SERVICE, HOWEVER, IN THE ABSENCE OF SEGMENTAL BREAK UP, THE MARGIN RELATING TO SUCH SEGMENT CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED WITH REASONABLE ACCURACY. THAT BEING THE CASE, WE AGREE WITH LEARNED DRP THAT THIS COMPANY CANNOT BE TREATED AS A COMPARABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. GROUND S RAISED ARE DISMISSED. 9 . IN T HE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.667/MUM./2014 ASSESSEES APPEAL 10 . AT THE OUTSET, LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE , ON THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT HE DOES NOT WANT TO PRESS 8 GOLDEN SOURCE INDIA PVT. LTD. GROUNDS NO.1, 5 AND 6. ACCORDINGLY, THESE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 11 . GROUNDS NO.7 AND 8, BEING GENERAL IN NATURE DO NOT REQUIRE ADJUDICATION. 12 . AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED , IF GROUND NO.4 RELATING TO ASSESSEES CLAIM OF WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR , GROUNDS NO.2 AND 3 RELATING TO OBJECTIONS RAISED AGAINST SELECTION OF THREE COMPARABLES WOULD BECOME ACADEMIC , SINCE , ASSESSEES MARGIN WOULD BE WITHIN 5% RANGE OF THE ARITHMETIC MEAN OF THE REST OF THE COMPARABLES. IN V IEW OF THE A FORESAID SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE AND WITH THE CONSENT OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF GROUND NO.4 AT THE VERY OUTSET. 13 . BRIEF FACTS ARE, AS DISCUSSED EARLIER IN THE TRANSFER PRICING STUDY R EPO RT, THE ASSESSEE WHILE BENCH MARKING THE I NTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION WITH AE HAD APPLIED TNMM AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD AND HAD SELECTED 10 COMPANIES AS COMPARABLES WITH ARITHMETIC MEAN OF 14.93%. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE AN ADJUSTMENT OF 3.93% TO THE ARITHMETIC MEAN OF THE COMPARABLES ON ACCOUNT OF WORKING CAPITAL DIFFERENCE. THUS, AFTER WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT, THE AVERAGE MARGIN OF THE COMPARABLES WAS COMPUTED AT 11%. THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER 9 GOLDEN SOURCE INDIA PVT. LTD. WHILE COMPUTING THE MARGIN OF THE FINAL SET OF COMPARABLES DID NOT CONSIDER ASSESSEES CLAIM OF WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT. AS COULD BE SEEN , I N ITS OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE DRP THE ASSESSEE SPECIFICALLY RAISED THE ISSUE OF NON CONSIDERATION OF ITS CLAIM OF WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT IN GROUND NO.1.10 . LE ARNED DRP WHILE CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: 4.7 INSOFAR AS THE VARIOUS RISK ADJUSTMENTS ARE CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THE TPO HAS ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES ADJUSTED OPERATING COST AND ADJUSTED OPERATING PROFIT OF ASSESSEES COMPARABLES. CONSEQUENTLY DISALLOWING SIMILAR ADJUSTMENTS ON OTHER COMPARABLES WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY REASON IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. TPO IS THEREFORE DIRECTED TO RECALCULATE PLI AFTER PROVIDING SIMILAR ADJUSTMENTS IN THE CASE OF ALL COMPARAB LES. 14 . HOWEVER, ULTIMATELY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ALLOW WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER . 15 . D RAWING OUR ATTENTION TO THE TRANSFER PRICING STUDY REPORT , LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED , ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF WORKING CAPITAL DIFFERENCE HAS TO BE ALLOWED SINCE THE AVERAGE INVESTMENT IN WORKING CAPITAL OF THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES IS MUCH MORE THAN THE ASSESSEE . H E SUBMITTED , IN ASSESSEES CASE INVESTMENT IN WORKING CAPITAL AS A RATION ON SALES COMES TO A NEGATIVE FIGURE OF 0.81%. HE SUBMITTED , THE PRIME LENDING RATE OF SBI DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008 09 WAS 12.94%. HE SUBMITTED , APPLYING THE SAID INTEREST RATE TO THE DIFFERENTIAL WORKING CAPITAL INVESTMENT RESULTS IN A WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT O F 9.38%. HE SUBMITTED , IF WORKING CAPITAL 10 GOLDEN SOURCE INDIA PVT. LTD. ADJUSTMENT IS ALLOWED, THE AVERAGE MARGIN OF THE REST OF THE COMPARABLES WOULD BE 10.49% AS AGAINST THE MARGIN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AT 12.03%. HENCE, NO FURTHER ADJUSTMENT TO THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE WOULD BE REQUIR ED. IN THIS CONTEXT, HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE COMPUTATION OF MARGIN OF FINAL SET OF COMPARABLES AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF LEARNED DRP AFTER PROVIDING WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT , AS PLACED AT PAGE 82 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 16 . LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E RELIED UPON THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE DRP. 17 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS NOTICED , IN THE TRANSFER PRICING STUDY REPORT ITSELF THE ASSESSEE WHILE COMPUTING THE MARGIN OF THE COMPARA BLES HAD MADE AN ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF WORKING CAPITAL , SINCE, IT IS VERY LESS AS COMPARED TO WORKING CAPITAL INVESTMENT OF THE COMPARABLES AS A RATIO OF SALES . NOW, IT IS FAIRLY WELL SETTLED THAT ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF WORKING CAPITAL DIFFERENCE HAS TO BE ALLOWED WHILE COMPUTING THE MARGIN OF THE COMPARABLE S , SINCE, IT IS A RELEVANT FACTOR WHICH INFLUENCES THE PRICE AND PROFITABILITY . T HE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER WHILE COMPUTING THE MARGIN OF THE COMPARABLE S HAS COMPLETELY IGNORED THE AFORESAID ASPECT. AS COULD BE SEEN, LEARNED DRP WHILE CONSIDERING THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW ASSESSEES CLAIM OF WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT THOUGH 11 GOLDEN SOURCE INDIA PVT. LTD. THEY HAVE WRONGLY MENTIONED IT AS RISK ADJUSTMENT. IN OUR VIEW, ASSESSEES CLAIM OF ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF WORKING C APITAL DIFFERENCE IS ADMISSIBLE. THEREFORE , WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE WORKING S FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPUTING THE AVERAGE MARGIN OF THE COMPARABLES AFTER WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT AND COMPUTE THE MARGIN OF THE COMPARABLES ACCORDINGLY. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 18 . IN VIEW OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE THAT AFTER WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT, THE AVERAGE NET COST PL US MARGIN OF THE COMPARABLES WOULD BE WITHIN 5% RANGE OF ASSESSEES MARGIN, GROUNDS NO.2 AND 3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING SELECTION OF THREE COMPARABLES HAVE BECOME ACADEMIC, HENCE, DO NOT REQUIRE ADJUDICATION. HOWEVER, THE ISSUES RAISED IN THESE GROUNDS ARE LEFT OPEN FOR ADJUDICATION IF THEY ARISE IN ANY OTHER APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN FUTURE. 19 . BESIDES THE MAIN GROUNDS, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED TWO ADDIT IONAL GROUNDS BEING GROUNDS NO.9 AND 10. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE , ON THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE , DID NOT PRESS THESE GROUND S . ACCORDINGLY, THEY ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 12 GOLDEN SOURCE INDIA PVT. LTD. 20 . IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 21 . TO SUM UP, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED AND ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 10.05.2019 SD/ - M. BALAGANESH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - SAKTIJIT DEY JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 10.05.2019 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