INCOME TAX OFFICER-16(1)(2), MUMBAI V. GAMA ENTERTAINMENT SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 7175/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8696 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-06-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 12-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PARTH NAVANDAR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Source of fund; Capital receipt
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 7175/MUM/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer-16(1)(2), 436-A, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Vs. M/s Gama Entertainment Systems Pvt. Ltd., 103, A Wing, Sai Commercial Centre, Gowandi Station Road, Deonar, Gowandi (East), Mumbai-400088. PAN No. AADCG 3492 N Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, DR Assessee by : Mr. Parth Navandar, AR Date of Hearing : 27/04/2022 Date of pronouncement : 10/06/2022 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against order dated 05.10.2018 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-7, Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’], for assessment year 2012-13 raising following grounds: i. Whether on the facts, in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in directing to delete the addition of Rs.1,99,99,815/ 1961, treating the Share Capital & Security Premium' received b the assessee as unexplained credits' in the assessment order, without appreciating that the same is covered by the ratio laid down in the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Major Metals Vs. Union of India? ii. Whether on the facts, in the law, the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in directing to delete the addition of Rs.1,99,99,815/ 1961, without appreciating that the same is covered by the ratio laid down in the judgment of Major Metals Vs. Union of India wherein the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Lovely Exports Pt. Ltd. (2008) 319 ITR 5 (SC) has been duly discussed and distinguished? iii. Whether on the facts, law, the Hon"ble ITAT was justified in directing to delete the addition of Rs.1,99,99,815/ 1961, without appreciating that in the instant case, the amounts which were realized share capital & security premium were not in the context of a public issue of share capital but essentially in the nature of a private placement? 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee return of income on 30.09.2012 declaring total income ( M/s Gama Entertainment Systems Pvt. Ltd. Whether on the facts, in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in directing to delete the addition of Rs.1,99,99,815/- made u/s.68 of the Income 1961, treating the Share Capital & Security Premium' received b the assessee as unexplained credits' in the assessment order, without appreciating that the same is covered by the ratio laid down in the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Major Metals Vs. Union of India? Whether on the facts, in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in directing to delete the addition of Rs.1,99,99,815/- made u/s.68 of the Income 1961, without appreciating that the same is covered by the ratio laid down in the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Major Metals Vs. Union of India wherein the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Lovely Exports Pt. Ltd. (2008) 319 ITR 5 (SC) has been duly discussed and distinguished? Whether on the facts, in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Hon"ble ITAT was justified in directing to delete the addition of Rs.1,99,99,815/- made u/s.68 of the Income 1961, without appreciating that in the instant case, the amounts which were realized by the assessee claimed to be in the nature of share capital & security premium were not in the context of a public issue of share capital but essentially in the nature of a private placement? Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee return of income on 30.09.2012 declaring total income ( M/s Gama Entertainment Systems Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 7175/M/2018 2 Whether on the facts, in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in directing to delete the made u/s.68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, treating the Share Capital & Security Premium' received by the assessee as unexplained credits' in the assessment order, without appreciating that the same is covered by the ratio laid down in the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of circumstances of the case and as per law, the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in directing to delete the made u/s.68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without appreciating that the same is covered by the ratio of the Bombay High Court in the case of Major Metals Vs. Union of India wherein the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Lovely Exports Pt. Ltd. (2008) 319 ITR 5 (SC) has been duly discussed and distinguished? in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Hon"ble ITAT was justified in directing to delete the made u/s.68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without appreciating that in the instant case, the amounts by the assessee claimed to be in the nature of share capital & security premium were not in the context of a public issue of share capital but essentially in the nature of a Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 30.09.2012 declaring total income (-) ₹19,27,150/-. This is a company formed by IIT Kumar for developing gaming machines as a startup company with founder of “Indiagames Ventures Group. Out of 5000 shares, 4999 equity shares of and one equity share of M/s Sweat & Blood Ventures Group respectively. Thereafter, in view of the designing and manufacturing company valued its shares at the valuation, the company further invited share capital along with share premium from Date No. of Shares applied No. of shares allotted 15/06/2011 1108 1108 27/08/2011 559 559 27/08/2011 4166 4166 M/s Gama Entertainment Systems Pvt. Ltd. . This is a company formed by IITian for developing gaming machines as a startup company Indiagames” Mr. Vishal Gondal i.e. Sweat Out of 5000 shares, 4999 equity shares of and one equity share of ₹10/- each were allotted and fully paid to M/s Sweat & Blood Ventures Group and Mr. Puneet Kumar respectively. Thereafter, in view of the prospectus designing and manufacturing arcade gaming machines, shares at ₹1080.84 as on 31.03.2011. In view of the valuation, the company further invited share capital along with share premium from following entities : No. of shares allotted Name of share holder Face value Issue price with premium 1108 Hope Island Pvt. Ltd. 10 3000.76 Hope Island Pvt. Ltd. 10 2999.37 4166 GHIOF 10 4166 Total M/s Gama Entertainment Systems Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 7175/M/2018 3 ian i.e. Mr. Puneet for developing gaming machines as a startup company along . Sweat & Blood Out of 5000 shares, 4999 equity shares of ₹10/- each were allotted and fully paid to Mr. Puneet Kumar of entering into gaming machines, the assessee- 1080.84 as on 31.03.2011. In view of the valuation, the company further invited share capital along with Issue price with premium Total payment received 3000.76 33,24,847/- 2999.37 16,74,969/- 4166 1,50,00,000/- Total 1,99,99,816/- 3. The Assessing Officer assessee to justify the premium charged during the year. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee company from the very first year of the operation and such a huge premium was unscientific and unjustified. The As further observed that the share premium collected was parked in the time deposits and was not utilized for business purpose and objects of the share premium received. The Assessing Officer was of the view that accumulated profits of the ass brought back in the price of the share premium, therefore, in view of the provision of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), he treated the entire value of the share along with share premium of ₹1,99,99,816/ Act. 4. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition observing that the Assessing Officer has not disputed the source of M/s Gama Entertainment Systems Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer during scrutiny proceedings assessee to justify the premium charged during the year. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee-company was a loss making company from the very first year of the operation and such a huge premium was unscientific and unjustified. The As further observed that the share premium collected was parked in the time deposits and was not utilized for business purpose and objects of the share premium received. The Assessing Officer was of the view that accumulated profits of the assessee brought back in the price of the share premium, therefore, in view of the provision of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the treated the entire value of the share along with share 1,99,99,816/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition observing that the Assessing Officer has not disputed the source of M/s Gama Entertainment Systems Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 7175/M/2018 4 during scrutiny proceedings asked the assessee to justify the premium charged during the year. According company was a loss making company from the very first year of the operation and such a huge premium was unscientific and unjustified. The Assessing Officer further observed that the share premium collected was parked in the time deposits and was not utilized for business purpose and objects of the share premium received. The Assessing Officer was of essee-company were brought back in the price of the share premium, therefore, in view of the provision of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the treated the entire value of the share along with share explained cash credit u/s 68 of the On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition observing that the Assessing Officer has not disputed the source of the funds and only raised doubts on the justification of the share premium. 5. Aggrieved, the Revenue is before the Tribunal raising the grounds as reproduced above. 6. Before us, the assessee has filed a Paper Book containing pages 1 to 224. 7. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant material on reco considering the submissions of the assessee and perusal of the assessment order deleted the additions observing as under: “4.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, it has been the submission of the assessee that IITians, Mr. Puneet Kumar and Mr. Vaibhay Goel. The assesse company diluted 28% of stake of company for Rs. 200 lakhs to Non companies. The inward remittance of share capital was reported to the Reserve Bank of of the technocrats / promoters, the question of accumulated black money being brought back to India, does not arise. The money was M/s Gama Entertainment Systems Pvt. Ltd. the funds and only raised doubts on the justification of the share Aggrieved, the Revenue is before the Tribunal raising the grounds as reproduced above. Before us, the assessee has filed a Paper Book containing pages We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee and perusal of the assessment order deleted the additions observing as under: 4.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, it has been the submission of the assessee that the assessee Company was formed by IITians, Mr. Puneet Kumar and Mr. Vaibhay Goel. The assesse company diluted 28% of stake of company for Rs. 200 lakhs to Non companies. The inward remittance of share capital was reported to the Reserve Bank of India in the appropriate forms. This being first venture of the technocrats / promoters, the question of accumulated black money being brought back to India, does not arise. The money was M/s Gama Entertainment Systems Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 7175/M/2018 5 the funds and only raised doubts on the justification of the share Aggrieved, the Revenue is before the Tribunal raising the Before us, the assessee has filed a Paper Book containing pages We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused rd. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee and perusal of the assessment order deleted the additions observing as under: 4.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, it has been the the assessee Company was formed by IITians, Mr. Puneet Kumar and Mr. Vaibhay Goel. The assesse company diluted 28% of stake of company for Rs. 200 lakhs to Non- resident companies. The inward remittance of share capital was reported to the India in the appropriate forms. This being first venture of the technocrats / promoters, the question of accumulated black money being brought back to India, does not arise. The money was parked in ICICI bank till the same was utilised towards business an later on the same was used for the business purpose only. It was also submitted by the assessee that in the initial years all start up companies incur heavy losses and the same is funded by investors with issue of shares at premium. In this regard the as some startups like the Ola cabs company's ANI Technologies Private Limited, Flipkart etc. It was also contended by the assesse that the Parliament consciously has not brought to tax amount received from a non - resident for share premium is not income. Section 68 is not applicable as source of credit is proved and is accepted. It is also contended Section 68 is not applicable as the source of credit accepted and the amendment is wef AY 2013 consideration is AY 12 section 68 is applicable for resident investor only. Section 56(2Xvib) was not applicable A.Y 2013-14. Vide assessee has relied on the 2012 | 206 Taxman 207/19 Ltd | ITA 232 OF 2012 Dated: 4.3 Having considered the assessement order of the A0 and the submissions of the assessee, I lind that during the year 2011 assessee had allotted Mauritius and I0 and premium of Rs. 3000.76 for 2996.37 for 559 shares. Despite being given AO, the assessee was not able to satisfy the AO as to high premium was paid on the shares when the assessee M/s Gama Entertainment Systems Pvt. Ltd. parked in ICICI bank till the same was utilised towards business an later on the same was used for the business purpose only. It was also submitted by the assessee that in the initial years all start up companies incur heavy losses and the same is funded by investors with issue of shares at premium. In this regard the assessee has cited the examples of some startups like the Ola cabs company's ANI Technologies Private Limited, Flipkart etc. It was also contended by the assesse that the Parliament consciously has not brought to tax amount received from a resident for issue of shares and the capital receipt on account of share premium is not income. Section 68 is not applicable as source of credit is proved and is accepted. It is also contended by the assessee that Section 68 is not applicable as the source of credit is accepted and the amendment is wef AY 2013-14 and year consideration is AY 12-13.The share application is by Non 68 is applicable for resident investor only. Section 56(2Xvib) was not applicable for AY 2012-13 as the said section was introduced w.e. 14. Vide notification No. 45 / 2016 dated 14.06.2016. The assessee has relied on the case of Nova Promoters & Finlease (P.) Ltd. | 2012 | 206 Taxman 207/19 taxmann.com 217 ( Delhi) and Fair Finvest 232 OF 2012 Dated: 22.11.2012 (Delhi). 4.3 Having considered the assessement order of the A0 and the of the assessee, I lind that during the year 2011 assessee had allotted 4166 shares at face value of Rs. 3600.58 to GHIOF 1667 shares to Hope Island PTE Ltd. at a face value of Rs. I0 and premium of Rs. 3000.76 for 11O8 shares and a premium of 2996.37 for 559 shares. Despite being given proper opportunity by the AO, the assessee was not able to satisfy the AO as to on what b high premium was paid on the shares when the assessee M/s Gama Entertainment Systems Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 7175/M/2018 6 parked in ICICI bank till the same was utilised towards business and later on the same was used for the business purpose only. It was also submitted by the assessee that in the initial years all start up companies incur heavy losses and the same is funded by investors with issue of sessee has cited the examples of some startups like the Ola cabs company's ANI Technologies Private Limited, Flipkart etc. It was also contended by the assesse that the Parliament consciously has not brought to tax amount received from a issue of shares and the capital receipt on account of share premium is not income. Section 68 is not applicable as source of by the assessee that proved and is 14 and year under 13.The share application is by Non-resident and 68 is applicable for resident investor only. Section 56(2Xvib) was the said section was introduced w.e.f notification No. 45 / 2016 dated 14.06.2016. The case of Nova Promoters & Finlease (P.) Ltd. | taxmann.com 217 ( Delhi) and Fair Finvest 4.3 Having considered the assessement order of the A0 and the of the assessee, I lind that during the year 2011-12, the 4166 shares at face value of Rs. 3600.58 to GHIOF Hope Island PTE Ltd. at a face value of Rs. 11O8 shares and a premium of proper opportunity by the on what basis such a high premium was paid on the shares when the assessee company was making huge losses. Therefore, the AO has made the additions the Act. However, in his assessment order, the AO has recorded a categorical finding that the source of fund the case of the AO that genuineness of transactions or credit worthiness of the creditors was not proved by the assessee. It was also not the case of the AO that the assessee was not a start knowledge that beginning but their shares their potential to make huge case of start up companies like the prospects of projects and their potential to because the assessee company was a loss making could not be sold on premium can not be a ground for w/ s 68 of the Act especially when residents and no doubt has been raised as to the credit worthiness etc. the creditors. In the case of Major Metals Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the AO, the amount of share application money which had been received earlie loan and then of the Act by the genuineness of the the creditors was also not was not the case of the AO. In fact, funds 4.3.1 In the case of Nova Promoters & Finlease (P.) Ltd. | 2012 | 206 Taxman 207/19 taxmann.com 217 ( Delhi », it has been concluded that ratio of a decision is to be understood and appreciated in the M/s Gama Entertainment Systems Pvt. Ltd. making huge losses. Therefore, the AO has made the additions the Act. However, in his assessment order, the AO has recorded a categorical finding that the source of funds was not doubted. It was not case of the AO that genuineness of transactions or credit worthiness creditors was not proved by the assessee. It was also not the case O that the assessee was not a startup company. It is a common that most of the start up companies make losses in the beginning but their shares are valued at a very high premium because of their potential to make huge profits in the future. The investors in the case of start up companies like the assessee are guided prospects of projects and their potential to earn high incomes. Merely because the assessee company was a loss making company, its shares could not be sold on premium can not be a ground for making additon w/ s 68 of the Act especially when the payers of the premium residents and no doubt has been raised as to the credit worthiness etc. In the case of Major Metals Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the AO, the of share application money which had been received earlie converted into share application money was added u/s 68 of the Act by the Settlement Commission, mainly on the ground that genuineness of the transaction was not proved and credit worthiness of the creditors was also not proved. However, in the present appeal, that was not the case of the AO. In fact, the A0 had accepted the source of 4.3.1 In the case of Nova Promoters & Finlease (P.) Ltd. | 2012 | 206 207/19 taxmann.com 217 ( Delhi », it has been concluded that ecision is to be understood and appreciated in the M/s Gama Entertainment Systems Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 7175/M/2018 7 making huge losses. Therefore, the AO has made the additions u/s68 of the Act. However, in his assessment order, the AO has recorded a s was not doubted. It was not case of the AO that genuineness of transactions or credit worthiness creditors was not proved by the assessee. It was also not the case up company. It is a common most of the start up companies make losses in the are valued at a very high premium because of profits in the future. The investors in the assessee are guided by the future earn high incomes. Merely company, its shares making additon the payers of the premium are non residents and no doubt has been raised as to the credit worthiness etc. of In the case of Major Metals Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the AO, the of share application money which had been received earlier as converted into share application money was added u/s 68 Settlement Commission, mainly on the ground that transaction was not proved and credit worthiness of in the present appeal, that the A0 had accepted the source of 4.3.1 In the case of Nova Promoters & Finlease (P.) Ltd. | 2012 | 206 207/19 taxmann.com 217 ( Delhi », it has been concluded that ecision is to be understood and appreciated in the background of the facts of particulars of the share applicants have the .O. has neither conducted any enquiry nor possession to show that the particulars furnished by the false and, therefore, cannot be relied upon, in such a case no can be made in the hands of assessee. Further, the High Court of Delhi in the case of Fair Finvest Ltd (ITA 232 OF 2012 DATED 22.11.2012 ( Delhi), has held that attracting the ratio of Lovely Exports (supra) to all cases of share capital without considering the facts, seems to be justified, as it is to the facts and circumstances of case to-case and, thus, no standard rule ignoring the facts, evidences and materials that form foundation of a case 4.3.2 In view of the above discussion and judicial precedents, I am of the view that the NO was not justified in making additon u/s 68 of the Act when the AO himself was satisfied as to the source of funds and no doubt had been raised by the NO as to (©) genuine identity of the addition made by the 7.1 We find that the Assessing Officer has mainly doubted the share premium received by the company. We obser company has been found by fresh IIT graduates as a startup M/s Gama Entertainment Systems Pvt. Ltd. background of the facts of that case. Thus, where the complete particulars of the share applicants have been furnished to the A.0. and the .O. has neither conducted any enquiry nor has any material in his possession to show that the particulars furnished by the false and, therefore, cannot be relied upon, in such a case no can be made in the hands of assessee. Further, the High Court of Delhi in the case of Fair Finvest Ltd (ITA 232 2012 DATED 22.11.2012 ( Delhi), has held that attracting the ratio Exports (supra) to all cases of share capital without considering the facts, evidences and materials is not understandable. It seems to be justified, as it is necessary that due regard should be given to the facts and circumstances of each case, which generally differ from case and, thus, no standard rule can be applied to all cases ignoring the facts, evidences and materials that form foundation of a case. In view of the above discussion and judicial precedents, I am of the view that the NO was not justified in making additon u/s 68 of the when the AO himself was satisfied as to the source of funds and no been raised by the NO as to (©) genuineness of transaction i identity of the creditors and ill) credit worthiness of the creditors. The on made by the AO is therefore, deleted.” We find that the Assessing Officer has mainly doubted the share premium received by the company. We obser company has been found by fresh IIT graduates as a startup M/s Gama Entertainment Systems Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 7175/M/2018 8 that case. Thus, where the complete been furnished to the A.0. and has any material in his possession to show that the particulars furnished by the assessee are false and, therefore, cannot be relied upon, in such a case no addition Further, the High Court of Delhi in the case of Fair Finvest Ltd (ITA 232 2012 DATED 22.11.2012 ( Delhi), has held that attracting the ratio Exports (supra) to all cases of share capital without evidences and materials is not understandable. It regard should be given each case, which generally differ from can be applied to all cases ignoring the facts, evidences and materials that form the very In view of the above discussion and judicial precedents, I am of the view that the NO was not justified in making additon u/s 68 of the when the AO himself was satisfied as to the source of funds and no ness of transaction ii) creditors and ill) credit worthiness of the creditors. The We find that the Assessing Officer has mainly doubted the share premium received by the company. We observed that the company has been found by fresh IIT graduates as a startup company looking to the future potential The Assessing Officer has given categorically finding that the source of fund was not doubted. The Ld. CIT(A) has also considered the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Metal Ltd. v. UOI WP No. 397 of 2011 sustained on the ground that genuineness of the transaction was not proved and creditworthiness of th whereas, in the present case the Assessing Officer has accepted the nature and source of funds. In our opinion, when th is not doubted by the Assessing Officer then he making addition in terms of section 68 of the Act. Any addition for receipt of share premium of the shares could be made in terms o not u/s 68 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has passed a reasoned order and we do not find any error M/s Gama Entertainment Systems Pvt. Ltd. to the future potential in online gaming business The Assessing Officer has given categorically finding that the source of fund was not doubted. The Ld. CIT(A) has also considered the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ltd. v. UOI WP No. 397 of 2011 wherein the addition sustained on the ground that genuineness of the transaction was not proved and creditworthiness of the creditor was also not proved hereas, in the present case the Assessing Officer has accepted the nature and source of funds. In our opinion, when the source of fund is not doubted by the Assessing Officer then he is making addition in terms of section 68 of the Act. Any addition for receipt of share premium having value more than the market value of the shares could be made in terms of section 56(2) not u/s 68 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has passed a reasoned order and we do not find any error in the same. Accordingly, we uphold M/s Gama Entertainment Systems Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 7175/M/2018 9 gaming business. The Assessing Officer has given categorically finding that the source of fund was not doubted. The Ld. CIT(A) has also considered the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Major wherein the addition was sustained on the ground that genuineness of the transaction was not e creditor was also not proved hereas, in the present case the Assessing Officer has accepted the e source of fund not justified in making addition in terms of section 68 of the Act. Any addition for more than the market value 56(2) of the Act and not u/s 68 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has passed a reasoned order the same. Accordingly, we uphold the same. The grounds raised by the Revenue are accordingly dismissed. 8. In the result, the Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/- (RAHUL CHAUDHARY JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 10/06/2022 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. //True Copy// M/s Gama Entertainment Systems Pvt. Ltd. the same. The grounds raised by the Revenue are accordingly In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. ounced in the open Court on 10/06/2022. Sd/- RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Mumbai M/s Gama Entertainment Systems Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 7175/M/2018 10 the same. The grounds raised by the Revenue are accordingly appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. /06/2022. OM PRAKASH KANT) MEMBER Sr. Private Secretary) ITAT, Mumbai