KELLOGG INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 7342/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8755 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-02-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: K
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 20-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: HIRALI
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction
• Section: 92B; 92CA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘K‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.7342/Mum/2018 (Asse ssment Year : 2014-15) M/s. Kellogg India Private Limited 1001-1002, 10 th Floor Hiranandani Knowledge Park Hiranandani Business Park Powai, Mumbai – 400 706 Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax 15(2)(1) Room No.480, 4 th Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road Churchgate, Mumbai -400 020 PAN/GIR No.AAACK1748A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Ms. Hirali Desai, Shri Kiresh Shivkar and Shri Amol Mahajan Revenue by Dr. Yogesh Kamat Date of Hearing 07/02/2022 Date of Pronouncement 16/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.7342/Mum/2018 for A.Y.2014-15 preferred by the order against the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 29/10/2018 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as Act, pursuant to the directions of the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP in short) u/s.144C(5) of the Act dated 12/09/2018 respectively for the A.Y.2014-15. ITA No. 7342/Mum/2018 M/s. Kellogg India Private Limited 2 2. The Ground No. 1.1 and 1.2. raised by the assessee is with regard to Arm’s Length Price (ALP) adjustment made in respect of Advertisement, Marketng and Promotional (AMP) expenses incurred by the assessee on the pretext that the assessee company had benefitted the Associated Enterprise (AE) by incurring the said expenditure. 2.1. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee is engaged in manufacturing and sales of breakfast cereals and convenience foods and it operates as a licensed manufacturer of ready to eat cereals. At the outset, both the parties before us fairly stated that this issue has been already decided in favour of the assessee by this tribunal in earlier years uptoAsst Year 2013-14. We find that the ld TPO and ld DRP had relied on their respective findings recorded for the Asst Year 2013-14 which goes to prove that the facts involved in those years are identical with the facts involved during the year under consideration. Accordingly we deem it fit and appropriate to reproduce the relevant operative portion of the order of this tribunal passed for the Asst Year 2013-14 in ITA No. 137/Mum/2018 dated 7.9.2020 as under:- “3.2 The assessee carried out certain international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AE) which were subject matter of determination of Arm's Length price (ALP) before Ld. Transfer pricing Officer (TPO) vide order u/s 92CA (3) dated 28-10-2016. These transactions have already been enumerated in para-6 of Ld. TPO's order. During proceedings before Ld. TPO, the perusal of assessee's financial statements revealed that assessee incurred certain Advertisement, Marketing & Promotional (AMP) expenditure aggregating to Rs. 11537.80 Lacs during the year under consideration. The turnover, net profit, selling expenses, AMP expenses and royalty payment data for 5 years has been tabulated in para-7 of Ld. TPO's order. The AMP expenditure was on account of Television Advertising, Agency fees, Radio, Newspaper, outdoor advertising production, expenditure, freebies, school promotions etc. Accordingly, the assessee was show caused as to why the adjustment should not be made on account of excess expenditure incurred for Development, Enhancement, Maintenance, Protection and Exploitation (DEMPE) functions in India, on behalf of its AE. ITA No. 7342/Mum/2018 M/s. Kellogg India Private Limited 3 The assessee, inter-alia, pleaded that the aforesaid payment was made to third parties in India and therefore these transactions would not constitute international transactions. Hence, these would not require determination of ALP on the part of Ld. TPO. 3.3 However, Ld. TPO opined that assessee's AE was actively planning, supporting, intervening, guiding, directing the assessee as to strategy of market development, brand positioning, communication strategy, growth of business etc. and deriving profits therefrom and hence, the assessee needed to be compensated for the same. To support the said opinion, Ld. TPO, referring to technical agreement between Kellogg Company and the assessee, observed the involvement of AE in managing the assessee's affairs to drive the sale of Kellogg products through strategy planning, preparing and implementing category development models, targeted brand messaging and other similar strategies. Therefore, the assessee was contractually required to promote the sale of Kellogg products in India. The efforts and expenditure incurred by the assessee on AMP and market development on the advice and guidance of its parent would constitute international transaction. In the above background, Ld. TPO proceeded to determine the ALP of the same using other method since the assessee could not submit benchmarking information as called for by Ld. TPO. 3.4 In working out TP adjustment, Ld. TPO computed mean AMP expenditure as percentage of sales of two comparable entity as 12.33% and applying the same to the assessee's turnover, proposed TP adjustment of Rs. 4585.16 Lacs in its order dated 28-10-2016. In other words, the Ld. TPO chose to benchmark the same primarily by using Bright Line Test (BLT) method. The working of the adjustment has been provided in para-18 of Ld. TPO's order. The TP adjustment, thus proposed, were incorporated in draft assessment order dated 29-12-2016 which were subjected to assessee's objections before Ld. DRP. 3.5 The Ld. DRP confirmed the TP adjustments primarily relying upon the directions given by predecessor DRP in AY 2012-13. It is evident from para 4.6 of Ld. DRP's order that facts of the case as well as the arguments raised by the assessee for the year under consideration are stated to be same as for AY 2012- 13. Aggrieved as aforesaid, the assessee is under further appeal before us by way of elaborate ground no. 1 and assails the TP adjustments so made. 4.1 As rightly pointed out by Ld. AR, this issue stood covered in assessee's favor by the order of coordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee's own case for AY 2009-10 (lead case on the issue), Cross appeals ITA Nos. 2866 & 2888/Mum/2014 common order dated 19-7-2019 wherein the issue has been decided in assessee's favor by observing as under: - 6. We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon. Undisputed facts are, the assessee is not merely a distributor of the products manufactured by the AE but the assessee itself manufactures its own products in India under license from the AE. It is also a fact that for marketing and promotion of its ITA No. 7342/Mum/2018 M/s. Kellogg India Private Limited 4 manufactured products in India, assessee has incurred AMP expenditure by making payments to third parties in India. Therefore, the basic issue which arises for consideration is, whether the AMP expenditure incurred by the assessee in India can come within the purview of international transaction as defined under section 92B of the Act. In this regard, the contention of the assessee before the Transfer Pricing Officer was, since the assessee has incurred the AMP expenditure for products manufactured and sold by it in India, it does not come within the purview of international transaction. Further, the assessee has also submitted that since there is no arrangement/agreement between the assessee and the AE for incurring such expenditure to promote the brand of the AE, it cannot be said that there is an international transaction relating to AMP expenditure. It is worth mentioning, the Transfer Pricing Officer has also agreed with the assessee that the AMP expenditure was incurred with the third parties in India, hence, do not constitute international transaction. Having held so, the Transfer Pricing Officer has still proceeded to determine the arm's length price of the AMP expenditure on the reasoning that the compensation required in the arrangement between the assessee and the AE for improving the brand intangible of the owner has to be determined. Further, he has observed that the AMP expenditure incurred by the assessee not only benefits the assessee but also the AE in terms of increase in the brand value of Kellogg. Thus, the Transfer Pricing Officer has inferred that there is an arrangement between the assessee and the AE with regard to promotion of the brand of the AE by incurring AMP expenditure. However, he has not provided any factual basis on which he has drawn such inference. By merely stating that there is an arrangement between the assessee and the AE, the Transfer Pricing Officer cannot bring the AMP expenditure within the purview of international transaction. If the Transfer Pricing Officer alleges that the AMP expenditure comes within the purview of international transaction by virtue of an arrangement between the related parties, the burden is entirely upon the Transfer Pricing Officer to demonstrate the existence of such arrangement. A careful reading of the impugned order of the Transfer Pricing Officer does not reveal any such factual basis which can demonstrate the existence of an arrangement between the assessee and the AE for incurring AMP expenditure to promote the brand of the AE. That being the case, the entire approach of the Transfer Pricing Officer in determining the arm's length price of AMP expenditure is fallacious. 7. Moreover, there is no doubt that the Transfer Pricing Officer has determined the arm's length price of AMP expenditure by applying BLT method. While doing so, he has heavily relied upon the Special Bench decision of the Tribunal, in LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Now, it is fairly well established that determination of arm's length price of AMP expenditure by applying BLT method is not valid. In a catena of decisions, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court while disapproving the decision of the Tribunal in L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) have held that BLT method is invalid as it is not prescribed in the statute. In this context, we may refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra). Following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra) and various other decisions, different Benches of the Tribunal have also held that in absence of an express arrangement/agreement between the assessee and the AE for incurring AMP expenditure to promote the brand of the AE, AMP expenditure incurred by making payment to third parties for promoting ITA No. 7342/Mum/2018 M/s. Kellogg India Private Limited 5 and marketing the product manufactured by the assessee, does not come within the purview of international transaction. 8. At this stage, it is relevant to observe, while deciding identical nature of dispute in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2011-12, learned DRP in direction dated 28th December 2015, have deleted the adjustment made by the Transfer Pricing Officer on account of AMP expenditure by recording a factual finding that the Transfer Pricing Officer has failed to demonstrate that there is an agreement/arrangement between the assessee and the AE for incurring AMP expenditure. While doing so, learned DRP has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra). Thus, viewed in the light of the ratio laid down in the decisions cited by the learned Authorised Representative, including the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Martuti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra), it has to be concluded that the AMP expenditure incurred by the assessee in India cannot come within the purview of the international transaction. Hence, the Transfer Pricing Officer has no jurisdiction to determine the arm's length price of AMP expenditure. 9. Having held so, it is now necessary to deal with the contention of the learned Departmental Representative to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for keeping it pending till the issue is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In our view, the aforesaid contention of the learned Departmental Representative is not acceptable. As per the prevailing legal position, the AMP expenditure incurred by the assessee in India cannot come within the purview of international transaction. That being the case, the adjustment made by the Transfer Pricing Officer cannot survive. Therefore, we do not find any necessity to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer. Grounds are allowed. The aforesaid decision has subsequently been followed by another coordinate bench in assessee's own case for AY 2011-12 in revenue's appeal ITA No. 1906/Mum/2016 and also in assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 ITA No. 2314/Mum/2017; common order dated 24-2-2020.” 4.2 It was observed by the bench in AY 2009-10 that the assessee was not merely a distributor of the products manufactured by its AE but the assessee itself was manufacturing its own products in India under license from the AE. Further, with a view to market and promote its own manufactured products, the assessee incurred AMP expenditure by making payments to third parties in India. There was no express arrangement/agreement between the assessee and the AE for incurring such expenditure to promote the brand of the AE and therefore, the said transactions would not constitute international transaction relating to AMP expenditure. It was also observed that BLT method as adopted by Ld. TPO was not a valid method to benchmark the transactions. The technical collaboration agreement as referred to by Ld. TPO did not envisage any such express arrangement/agreement between the assessee and its AE and therefore, the same could not support the case of the revenue. Therefore, facts being pari-materia the same, respectfully following the aforesaid decisions of Tribunal in assessee's own case, we delete the impugned TP adjustment against AMP expenditure and allow ground no. 1 of the appeal. ITA No. 7342/Mum/2018 M/s. Kellogg India Private Limited 6 2.2. As stated earlier, the facts with regard to the impugned dispute before us for the year are identical with earlier years. The ld DR tried to distinguish the decision taken supra by stating that the tribunal had held that Bright Line Test (BLT) method adopted by the ld. TPO in earlier year was not a valid method to benchmark the transactions , and that during the year under consideration, the ld TPO had only applied ‘other method’ for benchmarking the AMP expenditure. Per Contra, the ld AR stated that the ld TPO by merely mentioning ‘other method’ in his order had effectively applied only BLT method while doing the determination of ALP in respect of AMP expenditure. Hence the facts are exactly identical. 2.3. In view of the above, the decision rendered by this tribunal for Asst Year 2013-14 would be applicable for the year under consideration also and accordingly, we direct the ld TPO to delete the ALP adjustment made in respect of AMP expenditure. Accordingly, the Grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed. 3. The assessee had raised additional ground vide letter dated 25.10.2019 challenging the ALP adjustment made in relation to import of finished goods (i.e pringles) amounting to Rs 1,31,60,199/-. We find that the assessee had challenged this ground before the lower authorities but had inadvertently omitted to be raised before this tribunal in the original grounds. Accordingly, the same is raised by way of additional grounds. As the facts relevant for adjudication of this additional ground are already on record, we are inclined to admit the same and take up for adjudication. 3.1. We find that during the year under consideration, the assessee was engaged in manufacturing and sales of breakfast cereals and convenience ITA No. 7342/Mum/2018 M/s. Kellogg India Private Limited 7 foods and operated as a licensed manufacturer of ready to eat cereals. During the year under consideration, the assessee had commenced business of distributing Pringles products in the Indian markets. The assessee purchases the pringles product from its AE Pringles International Operations SARL , based in Singapore. The undisputed facts are that the Singapore AE does not manufacture pringles, but in turn gets it manufactured from a third party contract manufacturer. Thereafter, the goods are supplied at a cost plus mark up of 5% on third party manufacturer’s cost. These Pringles are later imported by the assessee from its AE and distributed in the Indian market. The ld TPO had also stated that the AE cross charges the transportation costs to assessee without any mark up. In the Transfer Pricing (TP) study report, the assessee characterised itself as a distributor of Pringles products and is responsible for the strategic and overall management of Pringles business in India and on the other hand, Singapore AE, being the least complex entity , was selected as the tested party for benchmarking the international transaction of import of finished goods. The assessee conducted a search in the Asia Pacific region to identify manufacturers and based on benchmarking analysis carried out, an arithmetic mean of 14 comparable companies with Gross Profit / Direct and Indirect Cost as the Profit Level Indicator (PLI) was determined at 50.07%. During the TP assessment proceedings, single year data of comparable companies were called for from the assessee and based on the same, the arithmetic mean margin of those 14 comparables chosen by the assessee was arrived at 54.48%. 3.2. The ld TPO disregarded the benchmarking approach adopted by the assessee and selected the Indian entity as the tested party. Further, the ld TPO considered Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the Most ITA No. 7342/Mum/2018 M/s. Kellogg India Private Limited 8 Appropriate Method (MAM) for the transaction of import of Pringles. The ld TPO selected the 8 comparable companies and arrived at mean margin of comparables at 4.33% as under:- No Company Name OP/OI 1 Adani Agri Fresh Ltd. 8.91% 2 Britannia Dairy Pvt. Ltd. 1.92% 3 Holy-Land Mktg. Pvt. Ltd.* 3.94% 4 Kannu Aditya (India) Ltd. 5.62% 5 Unigreen Global Pvt. Ltd. 3.25% 6 Unique Organics Ltd. 3.18% 7 Tanvi Foods 4.49% 8 Moreraka Organic 3.29% Average 4.33% 3.3. The ld TPO worked out the ALP of import of Pringles at Rs 1,31,60,199/- in the following manner:- Particulars Reference Amount Net Sales A 29,787,438 Total Operating Expenses excluding Import of Pringles B (3,691,948) ALP margin C 4.33% ALP profit D=A*C 1,331,498 ALP for import of pringles E=A-B-D 28,455,940 Price actually paid F 41,616,139 Proposed Adjustment G = F-E 13,160,199 3.4. This action of the ld TPO was upheld by the ld DRP. However, considering that AMP expenses were also disallowed in the hands of the ITA No. 7342/Mum/2018 M/s. Kellogg India Private Limited 9 assessee, the ld DRP deleted the adjustment proposed in import of pringles as the operating profit margins of assessee company post disallowance of AMP expenses was at ALP. However, the ld DRP noted that in case the adjustment on account of AMP is deleted by the tribunal, the adjustment on account of import of finished goods i.e Pringles would be sustained. Accordingly, in the final assessment order dated 29.10.2018, there was no adjustment proposed in respect of the import of Pringles transaction, which had eventually led to the inadvertent omission on the part of the assessee to agitate the same in the original grounds. 3.5. The ld AR stated that based on the FAR analysis stated in the TP study, the assessee acts as an entrepreneur in the Indian market by undertaking all the key decisions and performing all the significant functions with respect to its business operations in India and thus bears significant entrepreneurial risk. On the other hand, Singapore AE is not subjected to the dynamics of the Indian market and hence is a low risk entity remunerated with a steady return on cost. The assessee is entirely responsible for selling the Pringles products in the Indian markets through its distribution network whereas the Singapore AE who supply Pringles based on requisition of the assessee, are not responsible for marketing the products manufactured by them. The assessee is also involved in supply chain management including identifying the market opportunities, purchasing, logistics, production, distribution, marketing, finance and sale of finished products, which is not the case with the Singapore AE. From a risk perspective, the assessee undertakes all the market risks, credit risks, inventory risks , foreign exchange fluctuation risks and primary product risks, while the Singapore AE majorly undertakes only the secondary product risk. Further, the margin earned by Singapore AE is least ITA No. 7342/Mum/2018 M/s. Kellogg India Private Limited 10 impacted by external factors. In contrast, the assessee has multiple functions over and above the purchase of goods from AE and therefore , its margin is impacted by a number of factors including external market conditions , market competition etc. These factors not only make it difficult but also meaningless to isolate and determine the margin earned by the assessee purely from sourcing goods from the AE. 3.6. The ld AR also submitted that the ld TPO in his order rejected the selection of foreign AE as the tested party on the ground that the financial details of the foreign AE and the foreign comparables were not available. The finding of the ld TPO is completely misplaced as financials of both the AE as well as the foreign comparables were provided to the ld TPO during the TP assessment proceedings, which fact is evident from pages 173 and 324 to 600 of the paper book filed before us. 3.7. Per Contra, the ld DR reiterated the stand taken by the ld TPO and ld DRP and vehemently argued that the foreign AE cannot be taken as the tested party in view of the fact that the said AE is in Singapore and that the comparable companies are not stationed in Singapore and were located in different countries. The ld AR in rebuttal argued that the assessee had carried out regional benchmarking and identified comparables based in Asia Pacific Region and this practice has been considered by the co-ordinate bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs ACIT in ITA No. 196/Del/2013 for Asst Year 2008-09 dated 25.04.2016 , wherein the Delhi Tribunal had relied on the Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) entered into by that assessee u/s 92CC of the Act on 7.8.2015 with CBDT for Asst Year 2014-15. In the said APA, the CBDT had accepted the selection of comparables based on regional benchmarking in case country-by-country benchmarking is not feasible ITA No. 7342/Mum/2018 M/s. Kellogg India Private Limited 11 and in the appendix to APA, CBDT has agreed to benchmark South African, Ireland and Romania AEs benchmarking region as Europe ; in case of Nigeria, Malaysia and Morocco, the regional benchmarking has been accepted of Asia ; in case of South Africa and Peru, the benchmarking of Europe ; and in case of Egypt, Brazil and Thailand, benchmarking of Asia was accepted. 3.8. We find from the perusal of the TP Study Report and on hearing both the sides, all the risks are associated with the assessee as the assessee is responsible for developing the market in India and bear market risk and also responsible for the risk and rewards for the distribution activity. We hold that the assessee bears significant entrepreneurial risk in India. We find that the assessee had to carry on multiple functions as detailed above in order to market the imported Pringles in India. We find that the Singapore AE is remunerated on mere cost plus mark up basis and undertakes only limited functions. Hence we hold that for all practical purposes, Singapore AE would be the least complex entity. The statute requires that tested party selected should be the least complex party. Moreover, the main basis for rejection of the Singapore AE as tested party by the ld TPO was in view of the fact that the financials of AE as well as foreign comparable companies were not produced before him. This fact has been found to be incorrect as the assessee had indeed furnished the financials of AE as well as foreign comparable companies which are also enclosed in the paper book filed before us. The ld DR before us could not controvert this fact before us. Yet another argument on regional benchmarking of comparable companies carried out by the assessee had already been addressed by the Delhi Tribunal in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd and accepted by CBDT as stated supra. Hence that argument of the ld DR also fails. Accordingly, we hold that it would be safe to treat the ITA No. 7342/Mum/2018 M/s. Kellogg India Private Limited 12 Singapore AE as the least complex entity and consequentially Singapore AE had been rightly taken as the tested party by the assessee. We are inclined to uphold the same. 3.9. We find that the ld AR also made an alternative argument on without prejudice basis that even if the Indian entity is to be selected as the tested party, the MAM to be adopted would be Resale Price Method (RPM) as the assessee had merely imported the finished goods from its AE and sold the same to the third parties in India without significant value addition. We find that RPM evaluates the arm’s length nature of controlled transaction by reference to the gross profit margin realised in a comparable uncontrolled transaction. RPM measures a value of functions performed and is appropriate in cases involving purchase and resale of tangible goods / services in which the buyer / reseller does not add substantial value to the goods by physically altering them. As per Rule 10B(1)(b) of the Income Tax Rules, TPM begins with the price at which a product has been purchased from AE is resold to an independent enterprise. The resale price is then reduced by an appropriate gross margin representing the amounts out of which the reseller would seek to cover its selling and other operating expenditure and in the light of the functions performed. Hence in case of RPM being applied, what is required to be compared is only the gross margins earned by the assessee vis a vis the gross margins earned by the comparable companies. Hence the ld AR alternatively argued on without prejudice basis, that even if all the comparables chosen by the ld TPO are considered and benchmarking is done using RPM as MAM, then still the assessee would be through as the gross margins earned by the assessee at 47% (Refer page 608 of paper book filed before us) are much more than gross margins of comparable companies chosen by the ld TPO at ITA No. 7342/Mum/2018 M/s. Kellogg India Private Limited 13 17.09% (Refer Page 664 of the paper book filed before us). Hence even on this count, no adjustment to ALP is required to be made in respect of import of finished goods. 3.10. In view of the aforesaid observations, we hold that Singapore AE should be considered as the tested party, being the least complex entity, in the facts and circumstances of the case, which has been rightly done by the assessee. Hence no adjustment to ALP is required to be made. Even if the comparables chosen by the ld TPO are considered, undisputably since the assessee is only engaged in purchase and resale of goods without any substantial value addition thereon, RPM would be the MAM and in case of RPM only the gross margins are to be compared. We find that gross margins of assessee are much more than the gross margins of comparable companies chosen by the ld TPO. Hence no adjustment to ALP is to be made in respect of import of finished goods even if the comparable companies chosen by the ld TPO are upheld. Hence we hold that no adjustment to ALP is required to be made in the instant case in respect of import of finished goods in either case. Accordingly, the said adjustment of Rs 1,31,60,199/- is hereby directed to be deleted. Accordingly, the Additional Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 16/02/2022 by way of proper mentioning in the notice board. Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) Sd/- (M.BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 16/02/2022 ITA No. 7342/Mum/2018 M/s. Kellogg India Private Limited 14 KARUNA, sr.ps 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//