INTERNATIONAL SPECIALITY PRODUCTS (INDIA) P LTD, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6335/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6085 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-08-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: K
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 02-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANISH K AMAJIA
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

T HE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL K BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA ( A M) & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (JM) I.T.A. NO. 6335 /MUM/ 201 8 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 14 - 1 5 ) INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY PRODUCTS (INDIA) PVT. LIMITED 8 TH FLOOR, R. CITY OFFICE ABOVE R. CI TY MALL LBS MARG, GHATKOPAR WEST MUMBAI - 400 086. PAN : AABCI8200Q V S . ACIT RANGE - 15(2)(1) ROOM NO. 357 AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI - 400 020. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY SHRI KETAN VED & MS. URVI MEHTA DEPARTMENT BY SHRI MANISH KAM AJIA DATE OF HEARING 4.6 . 201 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2.8 . 201 9 O R D E R PER SHAMIM YAHYA (AM) : - THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 29.8.2018 PASSED PURSUANT TO DIRECTION OF THE DISPUTE RE SOLUTION PANEL (DRP) DATED 4.6.2018 AND PERTAINS TO A.Y. 2014 - 15. ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS, THERE ARE TWO ISSUES ARISING OUT OF GROUNDS RAISED. 2. FIRST ISSUE PERTAINS TO TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT IN RESPECT OF PROVISION FOR CORP ORATE SUPPORT SERVICES TO ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES (AES) AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,07,31,614/ - . 3. SECOND ISSUE RAISED IS TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT IN RESPECT OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO AES AMOUNTING TO RS. 32,14,036/ - . INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY PRODUCTS (INDIA) PVT. LIMITED 2 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPING, MANUFACTURING, TRADING, DISTRIBUTION AND SUPPLYING OF INNOVATIVE SPECIALTY CHEMICALS. IT IS A SUBSIDIARY OF THE ASHLAND GROUP. THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDERTAKEN VARIOUS INTERNATIONAL TRANSAC TIONS WITH ITS AES BUT THE TPO HAS ONLY MADE ADJUSTMENT FOR PROVISION OF CORPORATE SUPPORT SERVICES (ITES) AND PROVISION FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (R&D) . APROPOS - CORPORATE SUPPORT SERVICES : - 5. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN SEVEN COMPARABLES IN ORDER TO BENCHMARK TRANSACTION TAKEN OP/OC HAS PROFIT LEVEL INDICATOR AS UNDER : - SR. NO. NAME OF THE COMPANY SINGLE YEAR UPDATED MARGIN FOR A.Y. 2013 - 14 REMARKS 1 ACCENTIA TECHNOLOGIES LTD . - 17.16% RPT>25% 2 CALI BER BUSINESS POINT SOLUTIONS LTD . 1.33% FAILS YEAR END FILTER 3 COSMIC CLOBAL LTD. 19.78% FAILS EXPORT FILTER 4 DATAMATICS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. 20.84% FAILS EXPORT FILTER 5 FIRST SOURCE SOLUTIONS LTD . 17.55% FAILS TURNOVER FILTER 6 IKF TECHNOL OGIES LTD . 2.92% FAILS EXPORT FILTER 7 R SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL LTD . 19.98% FAILS YEAR END FILTER 9.32% THE TPO SHOW - CAUSE THE ASSESSEE FOR SIX OTHER COMPARABLES. FINALLY THE TPO CONSIDERED FOUR COMPARABLES AND SUMMARIZED CONCLUSION AS UNDER : - T HE FINAL SET OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES CONSIDERED IS SUMMARIZED HEREUNDER: SR. NO. NAME OF THE COMPANY OP/OC 1 EXCEL INFOWAYS LTD. 42.25% 2 JINDAL INTELLICOM 15.91% 3 BNR UDYOG LTD. 24.99% 4 MICROGENETICS SYSTEMS LTD. 19.24% AVER A GE 25 .59% AS ASSESSEE HAS EARNED OP/OC% OF 15% DURING FY 2013 - 14 AS AGAINST THE MARGINS OF THE COMPARABLES BEING 25.59%, THE ADJUSTMENT IS MADE TO THIS TRANSACTION AS FOLLOWS: - INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY PRODUCTS (INDIA) PVT. LIMITED 3 TOTAL OPERATING COST (IN CRORES) 9,56,18,773 OPERATING REVENUE OF THE ASSESSEE @ 15% 10,99,61,589 ALP MARGIN @ 25.59% 12,00,87,617 DIFFERENCE 1,01,26,028 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ADJUSTMENT OF RS. 1,01,26,028/ - IS MADE TO THIS TRANSACTION. 6. AGAINST THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ITS OBJECTION BEFORE LEARNED DRP AND FINALL Y POST DRP DIRECTION , FOLLOWING COMPARABLES WERE SELECTED : - (I) EXCEL INFOWAYS LTD. : 42.25% (II) JINDAL INTELLICOM : 15.91% (III) BNR UDYOG LTD. : 24.99% (AVERAGE 26.22%) 7. NOW AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BO TH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE COMPARABLES R SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL LTD. SELECTED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH HAS BEEN REJECTED SHOULD BE INCLUDED AS COMPARABLE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THAT THIS HAS BEEN SO HELD BY SEVERAL DECISIONS OF THE ITAT. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT EXCLUSION OF COMPARABLE EXCEL INFOWAYS LTD. IS ALSO UPHELD BY THE ITAT IN VARIOUS DECISIONS. LEARNED COUNSEL PLEADED THAT ONCE TH E S E PROPOSITION S OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCEPTED, MARGIN EARNED BY T HE ASSESSEE FALLS WITHIN THE ARMS LENGTH RANGE 3%. 9. LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT R SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL LTD. HAS BEEN REJECTED AS COMPARABLE BY THE TPO/DRP ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAID COMPANY FOLLOWS DIFFERENT ACCOUNTING PERIOD VIZ I T FOLLOWS DECEMBER YEAR - END. LEARNED COUNSEL REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF DRP FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT R SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL LTD. WAS EXCLUDED AS THE COMPARABLE AS RESULT FOR THE ACCOUNTING PERIOD COULD NOT BE DETERMINED TO A REASONABLE DEGREE OF ACCURA CY FROM THE QUARTERLY AUDI TED RESULTS ARE NOT AVAILABLE. LEARNED COUNSEL CONTENDED THAT THE DETAILS PERTAIN TO 1.4.2013 TO 31.3.2014 ARE NOW AVAILABLE AND THESE DATA CAN BE USED AND RESULT CAN BE EXTRAPOLATED BASED ON QUARTERLY INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY PRODUCTS (INDIA) PVT. LIMITED 4 RESULTS AVAILABLE. LEARNED C OUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO FOLLOWING CASE LAWS WHERE R SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL LTD. HAVE BEEN VALID COMPARABLE : - CLEAR INFO ANALYTICS PRIVATE LIMITED V/S. ACIT [ITA NO. 2299/MUM/2016 DATED 15 MARCH 2019] FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13 LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LTD. V/S. ACIT REPORTED IN [2019] 101 TAXMANN.COM 41 (MUM - TRIB) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14 - PANGEAS & LEGAL DATABASE SYSTEMS (P.) LTD. V/S. ITO REPORTED IN [2017] 79 TAXMANN.COM 303 (MUMBAI - TRIB.) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 MAERSK GLOBAL SERVICE CENTRE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED V/S. ACIT REPORTED IN [2018] 100 TAXMANN.COM 435 (MUM - TRIB) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13. CIT V/S. MERCER CONSULTING INDIA P. LTD. REPORTED IN [2017] 390 ITR 615 (PUNJAB & HARYANA) FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2008 - 09 10. LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT UPON EXTRAPOLATING DETAILS OF QUARTERLY RESULT MARGIN OF THE SAID COMPANY COMES TO 14.64%. ACCORDINGLY, LEARNED COUNSEL PRAYED THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE REMANDED BACK TO THE TPO WITH DIRECTION TO INCLUDE TH E SAID R SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL LTD. IN FINAL LIST OF C O MPARABLES AND CONSIDER IN LIGHT OF THE NOW AVAILABLE QUARTERLY RESULT FROM 1 ST APRIL 2013 TO 31.4.2014. 11. AS REGARDS PLEA REJECTION OF EXCEL INFOWAYS LTD. , LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THIS COM PARABLE HAS HIGHLY FLUCTUATE D MARGIN. HE SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS SHOWN DRASTIC FLUCTUATIONS RANGING FROM 232.08% IN F.Y. 2010 - 11 TO 27.17% IN A.Y. 2014 - 15. IN THIS REGARD LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED FOLLOWING CHART : - PARTICULARS AY 2014 - 15 AY 2013 - 14 AY 2 012 - 13 AY 2011 - 12 AY 2010 - 11 OPERATING MARGIN (OP/OC) 27.17% 75.90% 41.27% 251.18% 232.08% 12. LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT FROM THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THIS COMPANY IT IS SEEN THAT ITS REVENUE FROM THE ITES SEGM ENTS HAS BEEN DIMINISHING OVER THE YEARS, AND THUS THE COMPANY FAILS THE INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY PRODUCTS (INDIA) PVT. LIMITED 5 TPOS OWN FILTER OF PECULIAR ECONOMIC CIRCUMSTANCES. LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING REVENUE TREND OF EXCEL INFOWAYS LTD. : - PARTICULARS AY 2014 - 15 AY 2013 - 14 AY 2012 - 13 AY 2011 - 12 AY 2010 - 11 OPERATING MARGIN (OP/OC) 52,972.12 76,098.54 79,096.95 2,03,526.40 2,04,161.34 13. IN THIS REGARD LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT TPO IN HIS OWN ORDER HAS REJECTED TRIJAL INDUSTRIES LTD. SINCE THERE WAS A DROP IN BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. LEARNED COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THIS COMPARABLE HAS UNRELIABLE EMPLOYEE COST BECAUSE THEY ARE IN DIFFERENT BUSINESS MODEL. THAT THERE IS NO S EPARATE SEGMENT FOR ITES. THAT THE COMPANY HAS DIVERSI FI ED INTO NEW AREAS SUCH AS CONS TRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY. LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO FOLLOWING CASE LAWS WHEREIN, EXCEL INFOWAYS HAS BEEN EXCLUDED AS COMPARABLE : - BAXTER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, V/S. ACIT REPORTED IN [2017] 85 TAXMANN.COM 285 (DELHI TRIB) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13 CLEAR INFO ANALYTICS PRIVATE LIMITED V/S. ACIT (ITA NO.2299/MUM/2017) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13 EMERSON CLIMATE TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED REPORTED IN [2018] 100 TAXMANN.COM 478 (PUNE - TRIB) FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2013 - 14 14. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, AS REGARDS THE PLEA OF LEARNED C OUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR INCLUSION OF R. SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL LTD. , WE FIND OURSELVES IN AGREEMENT WITH THE SUBMISSION MADE. THE SAID COMPARABLE HAS BEEN REJECTED ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT IT FOLLOWS DIFFERENT ACCOUNTING PERIOD AND LEARNED DRP HAS OBSERVED THAT SUCH COMPARABLE HAS T O BE EXCLUDED AS THE RESULT CANNOT BE COMPARED WITH DEGREE OF ACCURACY AS QUARTERLY AUDITED RESULTS ARE NOT AVAILABLE. NOW IT IS THE CONTENTION OF LEARNED COUNSEL THAT THE DETAILS REQUIRED IN THIS CASE PERTAINING TO 1.4.2013 TO 31.3.2014 ARE NOW AVAILABLE AND THESE DATA CAN BE USED AND RESULT CAN BE EXTRAPOLATED. THE CASE LAWS REFERRED BY LEARNED COUNSEL IN THIS REGARD ALSO SUPPORT THE PROPOSITION THAT THIS COMPARABLE CAN BE ACCEPTED AS COMPARABLE ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY PRODUCTS (INDIA) PVT. LIMITED 6 15. I N THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE ACC ED E TO THE REQUEST OF LEARNED COUNSEL TO REMAND BACK THE ISSUE TO THE TPO TO INCLUDE R. SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL LTD. IN THE FINAL LIST OF COM PARABLES AND CONSIDER IN THE LIGHT OF NOW AVAILABLE QUARTERLY RESULTS FROM 1.4.2013 TO 31.3.2014. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 16. AS REGARDS REJECTION OF EXCEL INFOWAYS LTD. , WE FIND OURSELVES IN AGREEMENT WITH THE SUBMISSION OF LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE . AS EVIDENT FROM THE SUBMISSIONS, THE SAID COMPARABLE HAS HUGELY FLUCTUATING MARGIN ALSO . ITS REVENUE IS DECLINING IN TO A GREAT EXTENT. FURTHERMORE, ASSESSEES PLEA IS THAT THE COMPARABLE HAS UNRELIABLE EMPLOYEES COST. THAT THERE IS NO SEPARATE SEGMENT F OR ITES. THAT THE COMPANY HAS DIVERSIFIED INTO NEW AREAS SUCH AS CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY. THESE DISTINGUISHING FEATURES SHOW THAT THIS ENTITY IS NOT A GOOD COMPARABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. THIS PROPOSITION IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE CASE LAWS REFERRED BY LEARNED COUNSEL AS ABOVE. 17. ACCORDINGLY, AS REGARDS THE ISSUE OF CORPORATE SUPPORT SERVICES, WE AC CED E TO THE REQUEST OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECT THAT R. SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL LTD. BE INCLUDED AS COMPARABLE IN TERMS O F OUR DIRECTION AS ABOVE AND EXCEL INFOWAYS LTD. SHOULD BE REJECTED. 18. LEARNED TPO SHALL ACCORDINGLY MAKE COMPUTATION AFRESH AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD . APROPOS TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT IN RESPECT OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT . 1 9 . IN THIS REGARD, ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED FOLLOWING DETAILS : - NAME OF THE COMPANY OP/O C CHOKSI LABORATORIES LTD. 15.06% SAAMYA BIOTECH (INDIA) LTD. 1.63% SYNGENE INTERNATIONAL LTD. 36.05% TCG LIFESCIENCES LTD. 13.47% TRIJAL INDUSTRIES L TD. 7.45% VIMTA LABS LTD . 15.97% VIVO BIOTECH LTD. 1.16% AVERAGE: 12.97% INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY PRODUCTS (INDIA) PVT. LIMITED 7 20 . THE TPO ACCEPTED THE SOME OF THE COMPARABLES AND HE COMPUTED MARGIN AS UNDER : - SR.NO. COMPARABLES MARGINS 1 CHOKSI LABORATORIES LTD. 15.06% 2 SYNGENE INTERNATI ONAL LTD. 36.05% 3 TCG LIFESCIENCES LTD. 13.47% 4 VIMTA LABS LTD. 15.97% AVERAGE 20.14% 2 1. LEARNED DRP UPHELD THE SAME. AGAINST THE ABOVE THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. 22 . LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES GRIEVANCE WILL BE ADDRESSED BY EXCLUDING SELECTION OF SYNGENE INTERNATIONAL LTD. AS COMPARABLE. HE SUBMITTED THAT VARIOUS BENCHES OF THE ITAT HAVE EXCLUDED THE SAME AND HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THI S. LEARNED COUNSEL CONTENDED THAT THIS COMPARABLE IS NOT APPROPRIATE SINCE THIS IS ENGAGED IN DIFFERENT BUSINESS ACTIVITY. IT IS ENGAGED IN CONTRACT RESEARCH AND MANUFACTURING SERVICES. ITS SEGMENTAL INFORMATION IS NOT AVAILABLE. THIS IS NECESSARY BECAUSE IT PERFORMED RESEARCH AND MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES. THAT ITS REVENUES ARE EARNED ON HYBRID REVENUE MODEL AND THE SAME IS NOT COMPARABLE. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN FOLLOWING CASE LAWS, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT SYNGENE HAS TWO STREAMS OF INCOME VIZ. FROM CONTRACT R ESEARCH FEES AND SALE OF COMPOUNDS, HOWEVER SEGMENTAL ANALYSIS IS NOT AVAILABLE IN THE ANNUAL REPORT AND HENCE IS FUNCTIONALLY NOT COMPARABLE. IN THIS REGARD LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED FOLLOWING DETAILS OF CASE LAWS : - PFIZER LIMITED V/S. ACIT REPORTED IN [2015] 64 TAXMANN.COM 465 (MUMBAI - TRIBUNAL) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04 (REFER PARA NO. 48 TO 52 ON PAGE NO. 11 OF THE ORDER) UPHELD BY JURISDICTIONAL. BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN ITA NO. 1731 OF 2016 (REFER PARA 10 ON PAGE 8 OF THE ORDER). EVONIK DEGUSSA INDIA PRIVATE LTD. V/S. ACIT REPORTED IN [2012] 28 TAXMANN.COM 285 (MUMBAI - TRIBUNAL) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 (REFER PARA NO. 19 ON PAGE NO. 11 AND 12 OF THE ORDER). INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY PRODUCTS (INDIA) PVT. LIMITED 8 DDIT V/S. PIONEER OVERSEAS CORPORATION INDIA REPORTED IN [2018] 93 TAXMANN.COM 274 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 (REFER PARA NO. 16 & 17 ON PAGE NO. 6 OF THE ORDER). 23. LEARNED COUNSEL CO NTENDED IF THE ABOVE COMPARABLE IS EXCLUDED MARGIN SHALL COME TO 14.83%, HENCE, LEARNED COUNSEL PLEADED THAT THIS COMPARABLE HAS TO BE REJECTED . 24. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, WE NOTE THAT A S REGARDS TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT IN RESPECT OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS CONFINED THE ARGUMENT THAT THE ASSESSEES GRIEVANCE WILL BE ADDRESSED BY EXCLU DING SELECTION OF SYNGENE INTERNATIONAL LTD. AS COMPARABLE. IT IS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SYNGENE INTERNATIONAL LTD. IS ENGAGED IN DIFFERENT BUSINESS ACTIVITY. THAT IT IS ENGAGED IN CONTRACT RESEARCH AND MANUFACTURING SERVICES. THAT ITS SEGMENTAL IN FORMATION IS NOT AVAILABLE. HENCE, RESULTS OF RESEARCH AND MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES CANNOT BE SEPARATELY IDENTIFIED AND COMPARED. LEARNED COUNSEL HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE CASE LAWS WHERE IT HA S BEEN AGREED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF SEGMENTAL ANALYSI S , T HIS IS NOT A GOOD COMPARABLE. ACCORDINGLY, WE ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF LEARNED COUNSEL AND DIRECT THAT SYNGENE INTERNATIONAL LTD. SHOULD BE TAKEN OUT OF COMPARABLE. THE TPO SH ALL MAKE COMPUTATION AFRESH ACCORDINGLY AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE PROPER OPPO RTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 25. IN THE RESULT ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER HAS BE EN PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 2.8 . 201 9 . SD/ - SD/ - (AMARJIT SINGH) (SH A MIM YAHYA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 2 / 8 / 20 1 9 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY PRODUCTS (INDIA) PVT. LIMITED 9 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// ( A SSISTANT REGISTRAR ) PS ITAT, MUMBAI