ACIT (LTU) - 2, MUMBAI V. GLENMARK GENERICS LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 5840/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7992 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 12-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL K , BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM ITA NO. 5840 /MUM/201 7 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013 - 14 ) ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT) - 2, MUMBAI WORLD TRADE CENTRE, CEN TRE - 1, 29 TH FLOOR, CUFFE PARADE, MUMBAI 400 005 VS. M/S. GLENMARK GENERICS LTD., GLENMARK HOUSE, HDO CORPORATE BUILDING, WING A, B.D. SAWANT MARG CHAKALA, OPP. WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY ANDHERI (E) MUMBAI 400 099 PAN/GIR NO. AACCG9820D (APPELLANT ) .. (RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY SHRI ANAND MOHAN ASSESSEE BY SHRI ANUJ KISNADWALA DATE OF HEARING 10 / 07 /2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 17 / 07 /2019 / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M) : THIS APPEAL IN ITA NO. 5840/MUM/2017 FOR A.Y. 201 3 - 14 ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 56, MUMBAI IN APPEAL NO. CIT(A) - 56/ACIT - LTU - 2/2016 - 17/313 - G DATED 22/06/2017 (LD. CIT(A) IN SHORT) AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED U/S.143(3) R.W.C. 144C OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT) DATED 18/01/2017 BY THE LD. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT) - 2, MUMBAI (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS LD. AO). ITA NO.5840/MUM/2017 M/S. GLENMARK GENERICS LTD., 2 2. THE GROUND NO.1 - 3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGARD TO THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADJUSTMENT MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CORPORATE GUARANTEE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE ON BEHALF OF ITS AE BY ACCEPTING 1% GUARANTEE FEE CHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE TO BE AT ARMS LENGTH. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE ARE THAT THE COMPANY IS EN GAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING OF PHARMACEUTICALS FORMULATION AND ACTIVE PHARMACEUTICALS INGREDIENTS AND CARRYING OUT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED (GPL), THE HOLDING COMPANY OF GGL (I.E THE ASS ESSEE) , IMPLEMENTED THE REORGANISATION OF ITS BUSINESS INTO SPECIAL I TY AND GENERICS IN APRIL 2008, BY MOVING ACTIVE PHARMACEUTICAL INGREDIENTS (API) AND FINISHED DOSAGE FORMULATIONS (FDF) SEGMENTS OF GENERICS BUSINESS INTO GGL. THUS, GGL STARTED COMMERCIA L OPERATIONS AND AIMS TO BE A GLOBAL INTEGRATED GENERIC AND API LEADER. BUSINESS PROFILE GGL'S BUSINESS CAN BE DIVIDED INTO THE FOLLOWING BUSINESS GROUPS: MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING OF FDFS (FORMULATIONS) MANUFACTURING AND MARKET ING OF API; AND R & D - FORMULATIONS DEVELOPMENT AND PROCESS IMPROVEMENT 3.1. ON - GOING THROUGH THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE , IT WAS NOTICED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION , THE ASSESSEE HA D REC ORDED A TURNOVER OF RS. 1771.36 CRORES AND MADE OPERATING PROFIT OF RS. 503 . 53 CRORES (28.43% ON SALES) . 3.2. DURING THE YEAR 2012 - 13 , GGL HA D EXTENDED GUARANTEES IN FAVOUR OF ITS SWISS SUBSIDIARY I.E. GGFSA TO FACILITATE GGFSA AVAILING LOANS FROM THIRD P ARTY BANKS IN SWITZERLAND. THE SAID LOANS ARE USED BY THE INVESTMENT HOLDING COMPANY I.E. GGFSA PRIMARILY FOR FUNDING WORKING ITA NO.5840/MUM/2017 M/S. GLENMARK GENERICS LTD., 3 CAPITAL AND OTHER CAPITAL RELATED NEEDS OF THEIR DOWN - STREAM SUBSIDIARIES AND REPAYING THE DEBT AVAILED FROM GGL. 3.3. THE DETAI LS OF THE LOANS AVAILED BY GGFSA FOR WHICH THE GUARANTEES WERE PROVIDED BY GGL HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BELOW. SR.NO PARTICULARS DETAILS 1. NAME OF THE BORROWER AE GLENMARK GENERICS FINANCE S.A. 2. COUNTRY OF THE BORROWER AE SWITZERLAND SWITZERLAND 3. BANK NAME AND COUNTRY STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, LONDON SOCIETE GENERALE, PARIS 4 . INTEREST RATE AT WHICH LOAN WAS TAKEN BY THE AE EURIBOR+385 BPS EURIBOR +395 BPS 5 AMOUNT OF GUARANTEE USD 52 MN USD 42 MN 6 . GUARANTOR (S): G LENMARK GENERIC LIMITED, INDIA GLENMARK GENERIC LIMITED, INDIA 7 . LOAN TYPE: BILATERAL TERM LOAN (THE 'FACILITY') BILATERAL TERM LOAN (THE 'FACILITY') 8 . SECURITY: UNSECURED UNSECURED 9 . TENOR 4 YEARS 3 - 5 YEARS 1 0 . GUARANTEE FEE: 1% 1% 11 . .INTEREST RESET BASIS: (FIXED/ FLOATING) FLOATING FLOATING ITA NO.5840/MUM/2017 M/S. GLENMARK GENERICS LTD., 4 3 .4. GGL HAS PROVIDED ADDITIONAL GUARANTEE AMOUNTING TO USD 10 MN AND USD 4 MN AGAINST LOANS 1 & 2 RESPECTIVELY TO THIRD PART Y LENDERS OF GGFSA. THE INCREMENTAL GUARANTEES ARE TOWARDS DERIVATIVE INSTRUMENTS ENTERED /TO BE ENTERED INTO BY GGFSA AGAINST THE ORIGINAL CREDIT FACILITIES IT HAS UNDERTAKEN. THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE ORIGINAL CREDIT FACILITY TAKEN IN BY GGFSA FROM THIRD PARTY LENDER HAVE NOT BEEN AMENDED / MODIFIED AND THESE FACILITY GUARANTEES ARE TOWARDS AVAILING DERIVATIVE FACILITY FOR THE ORIGINAL LOAN. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THESE FACILITIES ARE TO BE VIEWED IN C ONGRUENCE WITH THE EXISTING LOAN FACILITY. IN THE AFORESAID TRANSACTIONS: GGFSA IS AN INVESTMENT COMPANY AND A ROUTINE BORROWER BEARING RISK TO THE EXTENT OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON THE LOAN. GGL IS THE PRINCIPAL COMPANY OF THE GROUP AND ACTS AS A ROUTINE GUARANTOR BEARING RISKS TO THE EXTENT OF AMOUNT GUARANTEED, IN CASE OF DEFAULT BY THE BORROWER. 3.5. AS PER BENCHMARKING DONE IN TP STUDY, NO GUARANTEE COMMISSION WAS REQUIRED TO BE CHARGED AS PER INTEREST SAVING AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CHARGED ANY GUARANTEE COMMISSION. 3.6. THE ASSESSEE HAS DETERMINED THE ALP OF THE FINANCIAL GUARANTEES PROVIDED ON BEHALF OF GGFSA AS UNDER : - THE APPELLANT HAD APPLIED AN EXTERNAL CUP METHOD BASED ON INTEREST SAVED APPROACH BY TAKING GGFSA AS TESTED PARTY. UNDER THE INTEREST SAVED APPROACH, THE RATE AT WHICH THE BORROWER WOULD OBTAIN FUNDS ON A GIVEN DATE WITH THE GIVEN TERMS IS ESTIMATED. THIS RATE IS COMPARED TO THE RATE AT WHICH THE BORROWER WOULD OBTAIN THE FUNDS ON THE SAME DATE WITH THE SAME TERMS, BUT WITH A PARENTAL CREDIT GUARANTEE. UNDE R THIS APPROACH, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE TWO RATES REPRESENT AN ARM'S LENGTH CREDIT GUARANTEE FEE, AS THIS IS BOTH A QUANTIFICATION OF THE ITA NO.5840/MUM/2017 M/S. GLENMARK GENERICS LTD., 5 BENEFIT THAT THE GUARANTEED ENTITY RECEIVES FROM THE GUARANTEE AND THE INCREMENTAL RISK THAT THE GUARANTOR INCUR S IN PROVIDING THE GUARANTEE. USED DEAL SCAN & BLOOMBERG TO IDENTIFY COMPARABLES. THE DEAL SCAN DID NOT YIELD SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF COMPARABLES. HENCE WE HAD TO PROCEED WITH BONDS SEARCH FROM BLOOMBERG. THE PROCESS BY WHICH A RANGE OF ARM'S LENGTH CREDIT GUARANTEE FEE WAS ESTIMATED FOR THE INTER - COMPANY GUARANTEE FACILITY CAN BE SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS: ESTIMATION OF THE CREDIT RATING OF GGFSA; SEARCH AND IDENTIFICATION OF THIRD PARTY COMPARABLE UNCONTROLLED LOANS / BONDS WHICH ARE COMPARABLE TO THE INTER - COMPANY GUARANTEE FACILITY IN ORDER TO ESTIMATE AN APPROPRIATE FEE OF GUARANTEE; AND ESTABLISHING AN INTER - QUARTILE RANGE OF ARM'S LENGTH CREDIT GUARANTEE FEE FOR THE INTER - COMPANY GUARANTEE FACILITY BASED ON THE ABOVE SEARCHES. IN ORDER TO DETERMINE TH E ARM'S LENGTH NATURE OF THE CREDIT GUARANTEE FEE APPLIED ON THE INTER - COMPANY GUARANTEE FACILITY, APPELLANT ANALYSED THE FOLLOWING: THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE GUARANTEED (GGFSA) WITH RESPECT TO THE INTER - COMPANY GUARANTEE FACILITY; AND THE CHARACTERI STICS OF THE INTER - COMPANY GUARANTEE FACILITY. THE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS YIELDED THE FOLLOWING INTER - QUARTILE RANGE OF CREDIT SPREAD FROM THE BLOOMBERG SEARCH. REFER TABLE BELOW; CREDIT SPREAD LOA N NO. LENDER(S) AMOUN T OF LOAN INTERES T RATE CREDIT RATI NG ARITHMETI C MEAN OF MARGIN INTERES T SAVING S GUARANTE E FEES 1 STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, LONDON USD 45 MN EURIBO R + 395 BPS BA2/B B EURIBOR + 288.89BPS NIL NIL ITA NO.5840/MUM/2017 M/S. GLENMARK GENERICS LTD., 6 2 SOCIETE GENERAL E, EUR 27 MN EURIBO R + BA2/B B EU RIBOR + 288.89 BPS NIL NIL PARIS 385 BPS RESULTS PARTICULARS CREDIT SPREAD AFTER ADJUSTMENT (BPS) AVERAGE 288.89 LOWER QUARTILE 200.00 MEDIAN 225.00 UPPER QUARTILE 400.00 3.7. SINCE THE AVERAGE OF THE CREDIT SPREAD OF THE COMPARABLE ABOVE (I.E. 288.89 BPS) IS LESS THAN THE MARGIN OF 385/395 BPS PAID BY THE BORROWER (GGFSA), A GUARANTEE FEE NEED NOT BE CHARGED BY THE GUARANTOR. THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT T HIS PROVIDES EVIDENCE THAT BOTH THE PRICING BASIS ITSELF OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS OF GGL WITH REGARD TO RECEIPT OF GUARANTEE COMMISSION FEES AND THE OUTCOME OF THE PRICING I.E. THE PROFITABILITY, SUPPORT OUR VIEW THAT THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS OF GGL WERE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 'ARM'S LENGTH' STANDARD REQUIRED UNDER THE INDIAN REGULATIONS. 3.8. THE LD. TPO CALLED FOR INFORMATION FROM VARIOUS BANKS U/S.133(6) OF THE ACT AND BASED ON THE SAME, HE DETERMINED THE ALP AT 1.5% OF THE ITA NO.5840/MUM/2017 M/S. GLENMARK GENERICS LTD., 7 GUARANTEE AMOUNT AND ACCORDINGLY MADE THE ADJUSTMENT OF RS.98,62,989/ - TOWA RDS GUARANTEE FEE. 3.9. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT BANK RATE CANNOT BE COMPARED WITH CORPORATE GUARANTEE DUE TO DIFFERENCE IN FUNCTION, ASSETS AND RISK INVOLVED. THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE IN THIS REGARD (1) ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. EVEREST KANTO CYLINDERS LTD., REPORTED IN 58 TAXMAN.COM 254 (BOM) (2) COORDINATE BENCH DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., FOR A.YRS 2008 - 09 AND 2009 - 10 ( WHICH IS THE HOLDING COMPANY OF TH E ASSESSEE). THE ASSESSEE ALSO ARGUED THAT THE BANK RATE USED BY THE LD. TPO TO COMPUTE THE ALP IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE DEFINITION OF INTERNAL CUP AND EXTERNAL CUP. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE INTEREST SAVED BY THE AE DUE TO GUARANTEE PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY COMES TO NIL AND ON THAT BASIS, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD BENCHMARKED THE GUARANTEE FEE AT NIL EVEN THOUGH IT HAD ACTUALLY CHARGED FEE OF 1% FROM ITS AE. 3.10. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT INTERNATIONAL INTEREST SAVING METHOD IS ACCEPTED FOR BENCHMARKING OF GUARANTEE COMMISSION AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE JUDGMENT THE TAX COURT OF CANADA IN THE CASE OF GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL CANADA INC VS. HER MAJESTY, THE QUEEN REPORTED AT 2009 TCC 563. 3.11. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE AFORESAID AR GUMENTS, THE ASSESSEE FURTHER PLEADED THAT THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF EVEREST KANTO ITA NO.5840/MUM/2017 M/S. GLENMARK GENERICS LTD., 8 CYLINDERS LTD., SUPRA HAD UPHELD THE GUARANTEE COMMISSION RATE AT 0.5% TO BE AT ARMS LENGTH WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE HAD CHARGED 1% WHICH IS MORE THAN THE RATE FIXED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS PLEADED THAT ASSESSEES RATE AT 1% SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE AT ARMS LENGTH. 3.12. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER PLEADED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IN A.YRS. 2010 - 11, 2011 - 12 AND 2012 - 13 HAD ACCEPTED GUARANTEE COMMISSION RATE AT 0.5% IN RESPECT OF GUARANTEES GIVEN TO AE. THE LD. CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - I AM OF VIEW THAT TPO CANNOT BLINDLY REJECT THE BENCHMARKING OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT FIN DING ANY DEFECT IN IT. HOWEVER/1 DO NOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT NO GUARANTEE COMMISSION IS REQUIRED TO BE CHARGED. SINCE, THE APPELLANT HAD GIVEN GUARANTEE ON BEHALF OF ITS AE, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY SOME BENEFIT HAS ACCRUED TO THE AE AND ALSO THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN RISK BY GIVING GUARANTEE, HENCE APPELLANT CONTENTION THAT NO GUARANTEE IS REQUIRED TO BE CHARGED IN NOT ACCEPTABLE. I/ FURTHER FIND THAT METHOD ADOPTED BY THE TPO/AO IS NEITHER INTERNAL CUP NOR EXTERNAL CUP. IN A.Y 20 10 - 11 TO 2012 - 13, I HELD ALP OF GUARANTEE COMMISSION @0.50% P.A BY RELYING ON THE ORDER OF MUMBAI ITAT IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT'S HOLDING COMPANY GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICAL LTD FOR A.Y 2008 - 09 (ITA 5031/M/2012), WHEREIN THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF AE IN THE SAME COUNTRY/ ACCEPTED THE GUARANTEE COMMISSION RATE OF 0.53% BASED ON THE VARIOUS ITAT DECISION. FURTHER, THE DECISION OF ITAT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY BOMBAY HIGH COURT [INCOME .. TAX APPEAL NO 1302 OF 2014] WHERE HIGH COURT UPHELD THE CORPORATE GUARANTEE CO MMISSION RATE @ 0.53% P.A. FURTHER, I FIND MERITS IN THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT IN THE VARIOUS DECISION HON'BLE ITAT HAS ACCEPTED CORPORATE GUARANTEE COMMISSION @ 0.30 TO 0.60%. SR.NO. ORDER OF HON'BLE MUMBAI BENCH OF TRIBUNAL A .Y GUARANTEE FEE COMMISSION REMARKS 1. ASST. CIT V. RELIANCE 2006 - 07 0.38% BASED ON 10 INSTANCES GIVEN ON PAGE.NO.66 OF ITA NO.5840/MUM/2017 M/S. GLENMARK GENERICS LTD., 9 INDUSTRIES LIMITED ORDER 2. ACIT V. M/S ASIAN PAINTS LTD. 2005 - 06 0.25% TO 0.35% CITI BANK PAGE. NO. 17 OF ORDER. HSBC PAGE NO. 19 OF ORDER 3. M/S EVEREST KENTO CYLINDER LTD V. DCIT 2007 - 08 0.6% ICIC BANK - PAGE NO 21 OF THE ORDER 4. ASST. CIT V. M/S NIMBUS COMMUNICATION LTD 2005 - 06 0.5% M/S EVEREST KENTO HAS BEEN TAKEN AS AN EXTERNAL COMPARABLE - PAGE NO. 10 OF ORDER 5. ASST CIT V. M/S NIMBUS COMMUNICATION LTD 2006 - 07 & 2007 - 08 0.5% BASED ON RATE APPROVED IN APPELLANT'S OWN CASE FOR A.Y 2005 - 06 AVERAGE RATE 0.446% IN VIEW OF ABOVE REASONS, I H OLD ALP OF THE CORPORATE GUARANTEE COMMISSION @ 0.50% P.A. HOWEVER, SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS ALREADY CHARGED 1% GUARANTEE COMMISSION, NO ADJUSTMENT IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE. ACCORDINGLY, APPEAL ON THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEA L FOR GROUND NO. 1 TO 3. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.YRS.2011 - 12 AND 2012 - 13 IN IT(TP)A NOS. 6431 & 6432/MUM/2016 DATED 30/04/2009 RESPECTIVELY HAD ADJUDICATED THE VERY SAME ISSUE WHEREIN BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF EVEREST KANTO CYLINDERS SUPRA, THIS TRIBUNAL DIRECTED THE LD. AO TO DETERMINE THE ALP OF CORPORATE GUARANTEE COMMISSION AT 0.5%. HOWEVER, FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE A SSESSEE HAD ACTUALLY CHARGED 1% GUARANTEE FEE FROM ITS AE WHICH IS MORE THAN 0.5% FIXED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARLIER ITA NO.5840/MUM/2017 M/S. GLENMARK GENERICS LTD., 10 YEARS, WE HOLD THAT CHARGING OF 1% IS GUARANTEE FEE FROM ITS AE SHOULD BE ACCEPTED TO BE AT ARMS LENGTH, WHICH HAS BEEN RIGHTLY DONE BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE INSTANT CASE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NOS. 1 - 3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 6. THE GROUND NOS. 4 & 5 RAISED BY THE R EVENUE ARE AS UNDER: - 4. WHETHER LD. CIT(A) IS ERRED IN PREFERRING TNMM OVER CUP WHEN THE TIPS DATA IS OF A GOVERNMENT BODY, SHOWING PRICE OF SAME PRODUCTS, WHICH IS GENERIC. 5. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE AND IN LAW LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN FINDING THAT TNMM METHOD IS MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD TO BENCHMARK EXPORT BY API TO GLENMARK USA, EVEN THOUGH, TPO BENCHMARKED ON CUP METHOD AS FOR ONE PRODUCT PRICE CHARGED BY ASSESSEE IS LOWER THAN THIRD PARTIES COMPARABLES. 6.1. WE FIND THAT THESE G ROUNDS DOES ARISE OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND WERE INADVERTENTLY RAISED BY THE REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NOS.4 & 5 RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 7. THE GROUND NO.6 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION . 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 17 / 07 /201 9 SD/ - ( RAVISH SOOD ) SD/ - (M.BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED 17 / 07 / 2019 K ARUNA , SR.PS ITA NO.5840/MUM/2017 M/S. GLENMARK GENERICS LTD., 11 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//