DCIT - 8(2), MUMBAI V. M/s. MITSUI O.S.K. LINES MARITIME (INDIA) P. LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 6397/MUM/2006

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9020 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 13 year(s) 7 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: L
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 01-12-2006
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: UODHALRAJ SINGH
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction; Question of law; Tax effect; Set aside

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH J, MUMBAI , .#$% ,( ) BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . 6397/ / /20 06 (. . 2003-04 ) ITA NO.6397/MUM/2006 (A.Y.2003-04) . 1548/ / /20 09 (. . 2004-05 ) ITA NO.1548/MUM/2009 (A.Y.2004-05) THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CIRCLE 10(2)(2), AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020 ...... / / APPELLANT VS. M/S. MOL MARITIME (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MITSUI OSK LINES- MARITIME (INDIA) PVT. LTD.) KALPATARU SQUARE, UNIT NO.52, 5 TH FLOOR, KONDIVITA LANE, OFF ANDHERI KURLA ROAD, ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI 400 059 PAN AAACN3767G ..... 01 / RESPONDENT C.O.NO.171/MUM/2009 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.1548/MUM/2009, A.Y.2004-05) M/S. MOL MARITIME (INDIA) PVT. LTD. MUMBAI PAN AAACN3767G .... CROSS OBJECTOR/ASSESSEE VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CIRCLE 8(2), MUMBAI ...... APPELLANT 2 ITA NO.6397/MUM/2006 (A.Y.2003-04) ITA NO.1548/MUM/2009 (A.Y.2004-05) C.O.NO.171/MUM/2009 (A.Y. 2204-05) /2/ APPELLANT BY : SHRI UODHAL RAJ SINGH 01 2/ RESPONDENT BY : SHRI DHANESH BAFNA & MS. HIRALI DESAI 31 / DATE OF HEARING : 22/07/2020 456 31 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31/07/2020 / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : THESE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARE FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2003-04 AND 2004-05. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS OBJECTIONS IN THE APPEAL BY REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. WE WILL FIRST TAKE-UP THE APPEAL OF REVENUE FOR AY 2003-04. ITA NO.6397/MUM/2006 - A.Y.2003-04: 2. THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)VIII, MUMBAI ( IN SHORT THE CIT (A)) DATED 27/09/2006 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003- 04. THE REVENUE IN APPEAL HAS RAISED SOLITARY GROUND, THE SAME READ S AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,4 1,06,903/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ADJUSTMENT TO THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE OF THE ASSESSEES INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION. 2. SH. DHANESH BAFNA APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASS ESSEE, NARRATING THE FACTS IN THE CASE SUBMITTED THAT THIS APPEAL IS IN SECOND ROUND BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE APPEAL WAS EARLIER DECIDED BY THE TRI BUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 27/07/2011. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE AFORESAID ORDER REST ORED THE MATTER TO THE 3 ITA NO.6397/MUM/2006 (A.Y.2003-04) ITA NO.1548/MUM/2009 (A.Y.2004-05) C.O.NO.171/MUM/2009 (A.Y. 2204-05) ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. AGGRIEVED AGAINST REMANDING OF MATTER, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BL E BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.426 OF 2012. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 17/07/2012 ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE AND SET-A SIDE THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DATED 27/07/2011 WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE APP EAL OF ASSESSEE AFRESH. 3. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSE E SUBMITTED THAT THE SHORT ISSUE IN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS SELECTION O F COMPARABLES. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL HAD ENTERED INTO INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WITH ITS ASSOCIATED ENTE RPRISES (AES). THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING MANNING SUPPORT SERVICES TO IT S PRINCIPAL AES. THE ASSESSEE APPLIED TRANSACTION NET MARGIN METHOD (TNM M) AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD TO BENCHMARK ITS INTERNATIONAL T RANSACTIONS. THE SAME WAS ACCEPTED BY THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO). THE PLI OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. OP/TC WAS 9.32%. THE TPO RAISED NO DISPUTE ON THE MARGINS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAD SELECTED NINE COMPARABL ES TO BENCHMARK ITS INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS. THE COMPARABLES SELECTE D BY THE ASSESSE ARE ENGAGED IN ADMINISTRATIVE BACK OFFICE SUPPORT SERVI CES. THE ARITHMETIC MEAN OF THE COMPARABLES WAS COMPUTED AT 5.35%. OUT OF 9 COM PANIES SELECTED BY THE ASSESSE, THE TPO EXCLUDED 2 COMPANIES ON THE GROUND THAT THE COMPANIES ARE CONSISTENT LOSS-MAKING AND FUNCTIONALLY NOT COMPARA BLE. THE TPO FURTHER EXCLUDED 3 COMPANIES I.E. AMI COMPUTER (I) LTD., ME RCURY TRAVELS LTD. AND NUCLEUS NETSOFT & GIS INDIA LTD. ON THE GROUND THAT THESE COMPANIES HAVE INCURRED LOSSES DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . AFTER EXCLUDING ABOVE 5 4 ITA NO.6397/MUM/2006 (A.Y.2003-04) ITA NO.1548/MUM/2009 (A.Y.2004-05) C.O.NO.171/MUM/2009 (A.Y. 2204-05) COMPANIES THE TPO COMPUTED MEAN OF REMAINING 4 COMP ARABLE COMPANIES AT 34.96% AND MADE UPWARD ADJUSTMENT OF RS.1,41,06,903 /-. 3.1. THE ASSESSEE ASSAILED THE ADJUSTMENT BEFORE TH E CIT (A). THE CIT(A) VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER ACCEPTED THE CONTENTIONS OF ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THREE COMPANIES I.E. AMI COMPUTER (I) LTD., MERCURY TRAVE LS LTD. AND NUCLEUS NETSOFT & GIS INDIA LTD. AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICE R TO INCLUDE THE SAME IN THE FINAL SET OF COMPARABLES. WITH THE INCLUSION OF AFO RESAID THREE COMPANIES IN THE FINAL LIST OF COMPARABLES, THE MARGIN OF THE AS SESSE IS WITHIN +/- 5% RANGE AND HENCE, TP ADJUSTMENT DID NOT SURVIVE. 3.2. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSES SEE SUBMITTED THAT AMI COMPUTER (I) LTD., MERCURY TRAVELS LTD. AND NUCLEUS NETSOFT & GIS INDIA LTD. ARE NOT CONSISTENT LOSS MAKING COMPANIES. HE REFER RED TO PARA-7 OF THE TPOS ORDER, WHEREIN VANS INFORMATION LTD. WAS EXCLUDED F ROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES BEING CONTINUOUS LOSS MAKING COMPANY AN D THE ASSESSE HAS NOT DISPUTED EXCLUSION OF SAME. HE FURTHER FURNISHED FI NANCIALS OF THE THREE COMPANIES TO SHOW THAT THEY ARE NOT CONTINUES LOSS MAKING COMPANIES. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSE FERVENTLY SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF CIT (A) AND PRAYED FOR DISMISSING THE APPEAL BY REV ENUE. TO REINFORCE HIS CONTENTIONS, THE LD. AR PLACED RELIANCE ON FOLLOWIN G DECISIONS: I. CIT VS. GOLDMAN SACHS (INDIA) SECURITIES P. LTD ., 240 TAXMAN 736 (BOM); II. JOY ALUKKAS INDIA P. LTD. VS. ACIT, 228 TAXMAN 35 (KERALA); AND III. CHRYSCAPITAL INVESTMENT ADVISORS (INDIA) P. LT D. VS. DCIT, 376 ITR 183 (DELHI). 5 ITA NO.6397/MUM/2006 (A.Y.2003-04) ITA NO.1548/MUM/2009 (A.Y.2004-05) C.O.NO.171/MUM/2009 (A.Y. 2204-05) 4. PER CONTRA, SHRI UODHAL RAJ SINGH REPRESENTING T HE DEPARTMENT VEHEMENTLY DEFENDED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE OR DER OF TPO. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE TPO HAS RIGHTLY EXCLUDED LOSS MAKING COMPANIES FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY RIVAL SIDE S AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THIS APPEAL BY TH E REVENUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 27/07/2011. THE CO-O RDINATE BENCH BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH, IN THE C ASE OF QUARK SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. REPORTED AS 132 TTJ 1 (CHD.)(SB) RESTORED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. FOR THE SAKE OF COM PLETENESS, OPERATING PART OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW:- 13.4 THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH CITED ABOVE RELATES TO A.Y 2004-05, WHEREAS THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN THE IMPUGNED CASE IS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. THUS, IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL B ENCH, T.P ISSUE WAS IN THE INITIAL STAGES IN THIS YEAR AND, THEREFORE, A LIBERAL APPRO ACH SHOULD BE TAKEN. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O FOR FR ESH ADJUDICATION WITH A DIRECTION TO GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE FRESH COMPARABLES OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2002-03 AND MAKE OUT ITS CASE PROPER LY AND PLACE ALL RELEVANT FACTS BEFORE TAX AUTHORITIES SO THAT PROPER ALP CAN BE DE TERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THE GROU ND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. THE ASSESSEE ASSAILED THE FINDINGS OF TRIBUNAL IN R EMANDING THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, BEFORE TH E HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.426 OF 2012. THE SUBSTANTIA L QUESTION OF LAW BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FOR ADJUDICATION WAS: 6 ITA NO.6397/MUM/2006 (A.Y.2003-04) ITA NO.1548/MUM/2009 (A.Y.2004-05) C.O.NO.171/MUM/2009 (A.Y. 2204-05) WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER O F THE CIT (A) AND REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION? ANSWERING THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION IN NEGATIVE, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 17-7-2012 SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED O RDER AND DIRECTED THE TRIBUNAL TO DECIDE THE APPEAL AFRESH. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE DIRECTIONS BY HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT ARE REPRODUCED HEREIN BEL OW:- 9. IN VIEW OF THE STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSES SEE, THE QUESTION OF LAW IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL IS T HEREFORE, ALLOWED IN TERMS OF PRAYER (B) WHICH READS AS UNDER:- B) THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND DIRECT THE TRIBUNAL TO DECIDE APPEAL AFRESH AFTER H EARING BOTH PARTIES. THIS APPEAL IN SECOND ROUND BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IS TAKEN-UP FOR ADJUDICATION IN PURSUANCE TO THE ABOVE DIRECTIONS OF THE HON'BLE BO MBAY HIGH COURT. 6. FROM THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY RIVAL SIDES IT EMER GES THAT THE SOLE DISPUTE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS SELECTION OF COMPA RABLES. THE ASSESSEE IN TRANSFER PRICING STUDY SELECTED FOLLOWING 9 COMPANI ES AS COMPARABLES: COMPARABLE COMPANIES ADJUSTED OP/TC STAR ESTATES MANAGEMENT LTD. - 13.27% INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL HOUSE LTD. 3. 58% MERCURY TRAVELS LTD. - 3.87% VANS INFORMATION LTD. - 36.78% AMI COMPUTERS (I) LTD. -7.69% ACE SOFTWARE EXPORTS LTD. 22.63% HINDUJA TMT LTD. 76.43% MCS LTD. 7.52% NUCLEUS NETSOFT & GIS INDIA LTD. 0.37% MEAN 5.35% 7 ITA NO.6397/MUM/2006 (A.Y.2003-04) ITA NO.1548/MUM/2009 (A.Y.2004-05) C.O.NO.171/MUM/2009 (A.Y. 2204-05) THE TPO EXCLUDED 5 COMPANIES INCLUDING AMI COMPUTER (I) LTD., MERCURY TRAVELS LTD. AND NUCLEUS NETSOFT & GIS INDIA LTD. F ROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. THE AFOREMENTIONED 3 COMPANIES WERE EXCLUDED AS THE Y HAD SUFFERED LOSSES. NO OTHER REASON FOR REJECTING THE SAID COMPANIES HA S BEEN GIVEN BY THE TPO. 7. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS. GOLDMAN SACHS (INDIA) SECURITIES P. LTD. (SUPRA) HAS UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF TRIBUNAL IN ACCEPTING A COMPANY AS GOOD COMPARABLE, WHERE IT HA S NOT SUFFERED PERSISTENT LOSSES. THE TRIBUNAL IN SEVERAL CASES HAS HELD THAT IT IS ONLY PERSISTENT/CONTINUOUS LOSS MAKING COMPANIES THAT AR E NOT TO BE CONSIDERED AS COMPARABLES. IN OTHER WORDS, A COMPANY CAN BE ACCEP TED AS COMPARABLE IF IT HAS NOT SUFFERED PERSISTENT LOSSES. THE EXPRESSION PERSISTENT LOSS IS NOT DEFINED UNDER THE ACT OR THE RULES FRAMED THEREUNDE R. THE EXPRESSION HAS EVOLVED IN JUDICIAL RULINGS. ONE OF THE INITIAL DEC ISIONS OF TRIBUNAL SUPPORTING THIS PRINCIPLE IS BOBST INDIA (P.) LTD. VS. DY. CIT , 63 TAXMANN.COM 339 (PUNE- TRIB). PERSISTENT LOSS MEANS LOSSES IN THREE CONS ECUTIVE FINANCIAL YEARS INCLUDING THE FINANCIAL YEAR CORRESPONDING TO THE A SSESSMENT YEAR UNDER DISPUTE AND IMMEDIATELY TWO PRECEDING FINANCIAL YEA RS. THE THUMB RULE OF EXCLUDING PERSISTENT LOSS MAKING COMPANY HAS BEEN A CCEPTED IN VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS OVER THE PERIOD OF TIME. 8. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE AFORESAID THREE COMPANIES FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD. SUMMARY OF PROFI TS/LOSSES OF THE SAID COMPANIES IN THE RELEVANT THREE FINANCIAL YEARS IS TABULATED AS UNDER:- 8 ITA NO.6397/MUM/2006 (A.Y.2003-04) ITA NO.1548/MUM/2009 (A.Y.2004-05) C.O.NO.171/MUM/2009 (A.Y. 2204-05) SR.NO. NAME OF THE COMPANY FINANCIAL YEAR NET PROFIT/(LOSS) (AMOUNT IN RS.) 1. AMI COMPUTES (I) LTD. 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 58,21,187 2,98,372 (3,48,22,572) 2. MERCURY TRAVELS LTD. 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 59,47,110 (1,96,38,797) (2,82,76,139) 3. NUCLEUS NETSOFT & GIS INDIA LTD. 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 9,70,946 (32,64,757) (40,07,218) FROM PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE TABLE IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE COMPANY AT SR.NO.1 HAS SUFFERED LOSSES IN ONLY ONE YEAR AND THE COMPANIES AT SR. NO.2 & 3 HAVE INCURRED LOSSES IN TWO FINANCIAL YEARS. THUS, NONE OF THE ABOVE SAID THREE COMPANIES FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF PERSISTENT LOSS MAKING COMPANIES. THE CIT (A) HAS DIRECTED THE TPO TO INCLUDE AMI COMPUTER (I ) LTD., MERCURY TRAVELS LTD. AND NUCLEUS NETSOFT & GIS INDIA LTD. AS THESE ARE N OT CONTINUOUS LOSS MAKING COMPANIES. WE CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF CIT (A). THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS UPHELD, ERGO, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED SAN S MERIT . ITA NO.1548/MUM/2009 & C.O.NO.171/MUM/2009 - A.Y.20 04-05 9. THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF CIT (A) XXXII MUMBAI, DATED 19/9/2008 FOR AY 2004-05. THE ASSESSE HAS FILED CROSS OBJECTIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER IMPUGNED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 10. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESS EE SUBMITTED AT THE OUTSET THAT IN VIEW OF CBDT CIRCULAR NO.17/2019 DAT ED 08/08/2019 APPEAL OF 9 ITA NO.6397/MUM/2006 (A.Y.2003-04) ITA NO.1548/MUM/2009 (A.Y.2004-05) C.O.NO.171/MUM/2009 (A.Y. 2204-05) THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.1548/MUM/2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED ON ACCOUNT OF LOW TAX EFFECT. HE FU RTHER SUBMITTED THAT IF THE SAID APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED, THE CROSS OBJE CTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. 11. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FAIRLY ADMI TTED THAT THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL IS LESS THAN RS.50.00 LACS. 12. BOTH SIDES HEARD. AFTER EXAMINING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, WE FIND THAT THE REVENUE HAS RAISED SOLITARY GROUND ASSAILING TH E FINDINGS OF CIT (A) IN DELETING TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT OF RS.40,60,35 8/-. UNDISPUTEDLY, TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS LESS THAN THE MON ETARY LIMIT OF RS.50 LAKHS PRESCRIBED BY CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 17/2019 (SUPR A.) FOR FILING OF APPEALS BY THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THUS , WITHOUT GOING INTO MERITS OF THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE APPEAL, THE PRESENT APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED ON ACCOUNT OF LOW TAX EFFE CT. 13. BEFORE PARTING, WE CLARIFY HERE THAT THE REVENU E SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO APPROACH THE TRIBUNAL FOR RESTORATION OF APPEAL, WITH THE REQUISITE MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE APPEAL IS PROTECTED BY TH E EXCEPTIONS PRESCRIBED IN PARA 10 OF CIRCULAR DATED 11-07-2018 AND ITS SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENT DATED 20/08/2018. 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED ON ACCOUNT OF LOW TAX EFFECT AND CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSE ARE DISMISSED AS HAVING BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. 10 ITA NO.6397/MUM/2006 (A.Y.2003-04) ITA NO.1548/MUM/2009 (A.Y.2004-05) C.O.NO.171/MUM/2009 (A.Y. 2204-05) 15. TO SUM UP, BOTH THE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AND CROS S OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON FRIDAY T HE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2020. SD/- SD/- (S.RIFAUR RAHMAN) (VIKAS AWAST HY) ( / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / MUMBAI, 8 / DATED 31/07/2020 VM , SR. PS (O/S) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / / THE APPELLANT , 2. 01 / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 91 ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. 91 CIT 5. :;01 , . . . , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. ;<=$> / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI