DOW CHEMICALS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD. AS SUCCESSOR OF ROHM AND HAAS (INDIA) PVT LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO 14 (1)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 7936/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1777 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: K
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 23-12-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Related party transaction; Capital asset; Transfer pricing; International transaction; Additional evidence; Capital receipt
• Section: 28; 271(1)(c); 139; 143(3); 92; 234B; 22; 20

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 7936/MUM/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dow Chemical International Private Limited as successor of Rohm and Hass (India) Private Limited, Godrej IT Park-P2, 1 st floor Block B, 02, LBS Road, Godrej Business District, Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079. Vs. Income Tax Officer-14(1)(3), Room No. 458, 4 th floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AAACR 2855 F Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Rajan R. Vora/ Mr. Hemen Chandariya, ARs Revenue by : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 23/03/2022 Date of pronouncement : 19/05/2022 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against final assessment order dated 30/10/2019, passed by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward 14(1)(3), Mumbai [hereinafter shall be referred as ‘the Ld. Assessing Dow Chemical International Private Limited as successor of Rohm and Hass (India) Private Limited ITA No. 7936/M/2019 2 Officer’], in pursuant to the direction of the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) for assessment year 2014-15. The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO/ TPO/ DRP on fact and in law has: GENERAL 1. Erred in determining the Appellant's total income at Rs.18,87,64,272 as against returned income of Nil computed by the Appellant. I. TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENTS IMPORT OF RAW MATERIAL AND EXPORT OF FINISHED GOODS General 2. erred in making an adjustment of Rs 24,38,56,927 to the total income of the Appellant under Section 92CA(3) of the Act on account of adjustment in the arm's length price of the international transaction of export of finished goods and on a without prejudice basis of IN 23,54,22,466 on the international transaction of import of raw materials from Associated Enterprises ('AEs'). Inappropriate rejection of Cost-Plus Method ('PM') and instead adopting Transactional Net Margin Method ('TNMM') as most appropriate method ('MAM') 3. erred in not accepting the economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant under PM. In accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Dow Chemical International Private Limited as successor of Rohm and Hass (India) Private Limited ITA No. 7936/M/2019 3 Act, 1961 ('Act') read with the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ('Rules') for determination of the arm's length price and instead adopting TNMM as the MAM. 4. erred in making an incorrect observation that the Appellant is a loss-making concern and hence has chosen PM to benchmark the international transactions of import of raw materials and export of finished goods, without appreciating the fact that appellant is not a loss- making concern. Inappropriate rejection of comparable companies adopted by Appellant 5. erred in inappropriately rejecting the companies adopted as comparable by the Appellant in relation to the international transaction of import of raw materials and export of finishes goods. Inappropriate acceptance of non-comparable company 6. erred in considering Vivimed Labs Limited as a comparable to the Appellant for benchmarking the international transaction of import of raw materials and sale of finished goods without providing any cogent reason for rejecting Appellant's argument on non-comparability of the company. 7. erred in considering only a single company as comparable for benchmarking the international transactions of export of finished goods and import of raw materials. Alternate benchmarking analysis carried out by the learned TPO 8. erred in proposing a secondary benchmarking analysis and proposing an adjustment of IN 6,77,40,911/- by considering non- Dow Chemical International Private Limited as successor of Rohm and Hass (India) Private Limited ITA No. 7936/M/2019 4 comparable companies as comparable to the Appellant to benchmark the international transaction of import of raw materials, without providing any appropriate reasons for rejecting Appellant's argument on non- comparability of these additional companies. Non-consideration of adjustments on account of functional and risk differences 9. erred in determining the arm's length price of the international transactions of import of raw materials from AEs and export of finished goods to AEs without taking into consideration the economic adjustments on account of the difference in the functions performed and risk assumed (including differences in working capital employed) between the tested party (Appellant) and the companies considered by the learned PO/ Appellant. Objections specific to TP adjustment on export of finished goods of IN 24,38, 56,927 Non-consideration of Comparable Uncontrolled Price ('CUP') available in the form of market prices published by TIPS database 10. erred in inappropriately rejecting CUP in case of export of finished goods available on TIPS database (compiled based on customs data), furnished by the Appellant for justifying the arm's length nature of the transaction of export of finished goods. 11. erred in not taking cognizance of Appellant's contention that there will be no transfer pricing adjustment in case of export of finished goods (available on TIPS database for 92.46 percent of total exports to AEs) based on comparison with market prices published by TIPS Dow Chemical International Private Limited as successor of Rohm and Hass (India) Private Limited ITA No. 7936/M/2019 5 database, in case the value of adjustment for each finished product exported is aggregated. Non-consideration of separate segment for TNMM analysis for the international 12. erred in not considering Appellant's segmental results pertaining to export to AEs segment for benchmarking the international transaction of export of finished goods which is at arm's length. Objections specific to TP adjustment on import of raw materials of INR 23,54,22, 466 Alternate analysis usinq CUP data for import of raw materials Non-consideration of CUP available in the form of market prices published by Independent Chemical Information Services ("ICIS”) for import of raw materials 13 erred in inappropriately rejecting CUP in case of import of raw materials (i.e. monomers) available on ICIS website (relied upon by chemical industry), furnished by the Appellant for justifying the arm's length nature of the transaction of import of raw materials (monomers). 14. erred in not taking cognizance of Appellant's contention that there will be no transfer pricing adjustment in case of import of raw material (i.e. monomers which constitute 52.13 percent of import of raw materials from AEs) based on comparison with market prices published by ICIS, in case the value of adjustment for each raw material imported is aggregated. Rejection of CUP to the extent available Dow Chemical International Private Limited as successor of Rohm and Hass (India) Private Limited ITA No. 7936/M/2019 6 15. erred in not considering CUP as the MAM to benchmark the international transaction of import of raw materials (to the extent CUP data is available) and TNMM for the balance amount; and instead applying TNMM for the entire international transaction of import of raw materials. Non-consideration of CUP available in the form of market prices published by TIPS database 16. erred in inappropriately rejecting CUP in case of import of raw materials available on TIPS database (compiled based on customs data), furnished by the Appellant for justifying the arm's length nature of the transaction of import of raw material 17. erred in not taking cognizance of Appellant's contention that there will be no transfer pricing adjustment in case of import of raw materials (available on TIPS database for 95.37 percent of total imports from AEs) based on comparison with market prices published by TIPS database, in case the value of adjustment for each raw material imported is aggregated. II. CORPORATE TAX ADJUSTMENTS Compensation received of Rs.17,87,49,236 on termination of marketing support agreement being held as revenue in nature 18. erred in holding that the compensation received on termination of market support agreement is a revenue receipt and is taxable under section 28 of the Act without appreciating that it has resulted in loss of profit-making apparatus of the Appellant. 19. erred in holding that the compensation received by the Appellant on termination of a part of the contract on account of discontinuance of Dow Chemical International Private Limited as successor of Rohm and Hass (India) Private Limited ITA No. 7936/M/2019 7 certain product from its existing market support agreement is in the course of normal business activities of the Appellant. Charge of interest under section 234A of the Act 20. erred in charging interest of Rs 7,94,439 under section 234A of the Act. Charge of interest under section 234B of the Act 21. erred in charging under section 234B of the Act amounting to Rs.51,88,911. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 22. erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the appellant has not furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. 2. In the grounds raised, the assessee is aggrieved mainly in respect of ‘transfer pricing adjustment’ and ‘compensation received treated as revenue in nature’. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee i.e. erstwhile Rohm and Hass (I) Pvt. Ltd., was engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of specialty chemicals i.e. Emulsion polymers and packaging adhesives. The assessee filed return of Dow Chemical International Private Limited as successor of Rohm and Hass (India) Private Limited ITA No. 7936/M/2019 8 income for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2015-16, on 27/11/2015 declaring total income at Nil. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for the scrutiny and statutory notices under the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) were issued and complied with. In view of international transactions of import and export of goods amounting to ₹538,66,81,165/-carried out by the assessee with its Associated Enterprises (AEs), the Ld. Assessing Officer referred the matter of determination of arms length Price of those transactions to the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) 3.1 Meanwhile, M/s Rohm and Hass (I) P Ltd. merged with M/s Dow chemical International Private Limited (DCIPL) with effect from 01/04/2015, pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court dated 22/01/2016. 4. The Ld. TPO proposed an adjustment of ₹24,38,56,927/- to the international transactions of export of goods. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued a draft assessment order on 20/12/2018 Dow Chemical International Private Limited as successor of Rohm and Hass (India) Private Limited ITA No. 7936/M/2019 9 proposing transfer pricing adjustment as well as addition for treating compensation received by the assessee of ₹17,87,49,236/- on termination of marketing support agreement as revenue in nature. The assessee filed objections before the Ld. DRP against the draft assessment order. The Ld. DRP after considering submissions of the assessee, issue directions to the Assessing Officer in respect of transfer pricing adjustment and addition treating compensation as revenue receipt. Pursuant to the direction of the Ld. DRP, the Ld. Assessing Officer passed the impugned final assessment order in terms of section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act on 30/10/2019, wherein he made addition for transfer pricing adjustment of ₹24,38,56,927/-and addition for compensation received on termination of contractual rights amounting to ₹17,87,49,236/-. Aggrieved, the assessee, is in appeal before the Tribunal, raising the grounds as reproduced above. Dow Chemical International Private Limited as successor of Rohm and Hass (India) Private Limited ITA No. 7936/M/2019 10 5. Before us, the assessee has filed a paperbook containing pages 1 to 417. The assessee has also filed a copy of transfer pricing order dated 17/01/2022 for assessment year 2014-15, which has been passed in compliance to the order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 6577/MUM/2018. 6. The ground No. one of the appeal being general in nature, we are not required to adjudicate upon specifically. 7. In respect of ground Nos. 2 to 17, related to transfer pricing adjustment, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that if ground Nos. 10 to 11 and 15 to 17 are allowed in favour of the assessee, the remaining grounds will be rendered academic only and the assessee may prefer not to argue those grounds. Accordingly, firstly, the ground numbers 10 to 11 and 15 to 17 are taken for adjudication. 8. In ground Nos. 10 and 11, the assessee has raised the issue of not considering direct method in the form of Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method in view of availability of data Dow Chemical International Private Limited as successor of Rohm and Hass (India) Private Limited ITA No. 7936/M/2019 11 using “TIPS database” for export of finished goods. Similarly in ground No. 15 to 17, the assessee has raised the issue of not considering CUP method in view of availability of “TIPS” data of import of raw materials. 9. Before, we proceed to adjudicate the issue in dispute, it is relevant to discuss the brief facts related to transfer pricing adjustment of the assessee. 10. The Ld. TPO observed total international transactions of ₹538,81,08,550/-, which he has reproduced in para-4 (four) of the transfer pricing order dated 31/10/2018. The Ld. TPO chose transactions at serial No. one and two of the said list i.e. purchase of raw material and sale of finished goods amounting to ₹294.30 crores. The assessee adopted Cost Plus Method (CPM) taking profit level indicator (PLI) as gross profit/sales and gross profit was arrived after considering direct and indirect cost of production. The assessee worked out PLI of its manufacturing segment at 20.06%. Dow Chemical International Private Limited as successor of Rohm and Hass (India) Private Limited ITA No. 7936/M/2019 12 The assessee chosen 11 comparables, but taken operating profit/operating income as PLI and computed mean PLI of those comparables at 6.64% and accordingly, the assessee was of the view that the transactions of purchase of raw material and finished goods were at arm’s length. The Ld. TPO rejected the CPM method as most appropriate method for determination of arms length price. According to the Ld. TPO, the application of CPM requires gross margins both for the tested party and the comparables. The Ld. TPO found that assessee is a loss-making concern and has incurred selling & distribution and administration expenses and therefore to avoid comparability at entity level, the assessee is trying to benchmark the transactions on GP/sales. The Ld. TPO also rejected the CPM method because of non-availability of gross profit margin details in respect of the comparables. The Ld. TPO also observed that in immediately preceding assessment year 2014-15, the Ld. DRP rejected the CPM method and applied TNMM as most appropriate method. The Ld. TPO also rejected the argument of the Dow Chemical International Private Limited as successor of Rohm and Hass (India) Private Limited ITA No. 7936/M/2019 13 assessee of applying CUP method in view of Independent Chemical Information Service (ICIS) data. According to the Ld. TPO the import prices on various indices/markets as reported in ICIS data fluctuate on hourly basis and therefore the assessee’s attempts to benchmark the transactions with non-contemporaneous data, vitiates the whole benchmarking process. He also noticed that the data published by the ICIS is based on number of assumptions and presumption and actual transactions as well bids and offers, i.e. quotations, which are not actual transactions, therefore, the ‘data’ cannot be accepted as CUP. He also noticed that there was no complete ICIS data for comparing all the transactions of the assessee. The Ld. TPO applied TNMM as most the appropriate method using operating profit/operating revenue as PLI. The PLI of the manufacturing segment of the assessee was worked out to 4.87%. The Ld. TPO taken M/s Vivimed Labs Ltd as comparable and worked out weighted average of its PLI for the last three years at 23.73%. The Dow Chemical International Private Limited as successor of Rohm and Hass Ld. TPO, accordingly computed the transfer pricing adjustment of 24,38, 56,927/-as under: 11. The Ld. DRP also rejected the objection of the as considering CPM as most appropriate “4.2.1 With reference to the objections of the assessee regarding rejection of the economic analysis maintained by it, we find that the analysis of Dow Chemical International Private Limited as successor of Rohm and Hass (India) ITA No. 7936/M/2019 TPO, accordingly computed the transfer pricing adjustment of as under: DRP also rejected the objection of the as s most appropriate method observing as under: With reference to the objections of the assessee regarding rejection of the economic analysis undertaken by the assessce and documentation maintained by it, we find that the analysis of the assessee has been Dow Chemical International Private Limited as successor of Rohm and Hass (India) Private Limited ITA No. 7936/M/2019 14 TPO, accordingly computed the transfer pricing adjustment of ₹ DRP also rejected the objection of the assessee for not method observing as under: With reference to the objections of the assessee regarding rejection undertaken by the assessce and documentation the assessee has been Dow Chemical International Private Limited as successor of Rohm and Hass (India) Private Limited ITA No. 7936/M/2019 15 examined by the TO before arriving at an opinion regarding the study carried out by the assessee. With respect to use of gross margin in assessee's study, it is noted that the assessee is a full risk manufacturer and has significant below the line expenses which need to be compensated. Hence, a TP study using gross margins in the case of the assessee is totally incorrect and has rightly been rejected. The assessee, keeping in view its FAR needs to be benchmarked at operating margin level. Hence, the TPO was right in rejecting gross margin as a PLÎ, Gross margins are proper only when the use of assessee's own capital assets or employee is minimal and does not contribute to value creation. Such is not the case here. The TPO has pointed out several issues with the benchmarking and has clearly brought out the fact that the companies selected by the assessee were not functionally comparable with the assessee. The IPO has also commented on the search process and the use of multiple year data. He has dealt with each of the comparable selected by the assessee and has pointed out the defects in them. The TPO has after detailed analysis of the facts of the case, noted that the TP study of the assessee using PM method was not the appropriate method and the TPO has adopted the TNMM method. In view of the facis and details narrated in the TPO's order, it is clear that the study conduced by the assessee does not comply with the provisions of section 92C(3) of the Act. Hence, we find no merit in the objections raised no. 3 to 5 are rejected.” 12. Before the Ld. DRP, the assessee submitted to consider CUP as most appropriate method in view of the availability of TIPS data base for comparability and filed additional evidence in the form of TIPS data. The Ld. DRP sent the additional evidence to the Ld. Dow Chemical International Private Limited as successor of Rohm and Hass (India) Private Limited ITA No. 7936/M/2019 16 AO/TPO. After considering the comments of the AO/TPO, the Ld. DRP observed as under: “5.2 Discussion & Direction of the DRP: We have considered the order of the AO/TPO, submissions of the assessee, additional evidences filed by the assessee, remand report of the assessee and the rejoinder of the assessee. It is noted that the TPO has dealt with the additional evidences filed by the assessee and noted the following: 1. In the import segment the assessce has value of imports of 156.53 crores, the contention of the assessee that 95.37% of the data was available in TIPS database was incorrect the correct number comes to $2.2%. There is mismatch of dates in the data of the assessee and the database. Further there is no mention of geography and volume of transactions which makes the data unreliable for a CUP analysis which requires closer proximity of data. For these reasons the TO has rejected the data of the assessee. 2. In the export segment the assessee has a value of imports of 137 77 crores, the contention of the assessee that 92.46% of the data was available in TIPS database was incorrect the correct number comes to 87.24%. There is mismatch of dates in the data of the assessee and the database. Further there is no mention of geography and volume of transactions which makes the data unreliable for a CUP analysis which requires closer proximity of data. For these reasons the IPO has rejected the data of the assessee. 3. As regards the adjustment with regards to export segment using TNMM the TPO has reported that the contention of the assessee that no opportunity Dow Chemical International Private Limited as successor of Rohm and Hass (India) Private Limited ITA No. 7936/M/2019 17 was provided to assessee for TNMM analysis is not borne out of record as a specific recoding is there in the order sheet dt. 24/09/2018. 4. As regards the segmental analysis the TPO has stated that the all the transactions of the assessee are interlinked and as such the PLI needs to be worked out at entity level, however the adjustment has been worked out by considering the transactions with AE only. The TPO has rejected the bifurcation of the segments by the assessee by noting that the expenses have been bifurcated on the revenue basis and the data submitted by the assessee was not reliable. The claim of the assessee that the data is derived form SAP which captures the data correctly has not been accepted by the TPO for the reason that the products sold to AF and non AF are same. The assessee has objected to the findings of the PO in the remand report but has not been able to meet the deficiencies pointed out by the TPO in the remand report and for this reason the contentions of the assessee are rejected.” 13. In view of the above observation, the Ld. DRP rejected the contention of the assessee for considering CUP method, as under: “5.2.1 Import of Raw materials We have considered the facts of the case and submissions made by the assessee. The assessee in its submission argued that the TO had rejected the CUP available in the form of market prices published by the ICIS applied by the assessce for arriving at the Arms Length Price for import of Raw Materials. The assessee has compared its purchase price with the data spread over a few weeks and months available on the ICIS. The assessee in its submission has further stated that the TO has rejected the CUP Method applied by the assessee in arriving at the Arms Length Price without giving Dow Chemical International Private Limited as successor of Rohm and Hass (India) Private Limited ITA No. 7936/M/2019 18 a valid explanation. The assessee submitted that the method applied by it was most appropriate. 5.2.2 We have gone through the Order by the PO and find that the TPO has clearly mentioned the reasons for rejection of CUP Method on account non availability of contemporaneous import price in so far as the Assessee has tried to compare its import transactions with data spread over a few weeks and months. The TPO has also stated that import prices on various indices/markets fluctuate on an hourly basis and the Assessee's attempt to benchmark transactions with non contemporancous data vitiates the whole benchmarking process. The quotations given in the database used for benchmarking the transactions of raw material import by the assessee are not actual transaction data for the relevant date of transaction and therefore cannot be accepted as a CUP. The TPO rejected the CUP data available on the TIPS database on the ground that TIPS database gives prices of raw material imported for only 80 % of raw material and hence, the CUP data on TIPS database was also rejected and TNMM was applied. The Panel is in agreement the findings of the PO and the objection of the assessee in this regard is rejected. 5.2.3 Sale of Finished Goods 5.2.4 We have considered the facts of the case and submissions made by the assessee. The assessee in its submission argued that the TO had rejected the cost plus method applied by the assessee for arriving at the Arms Length Price for sale of finished goods. The assessee in its submission has further stated that the TO has rejecied the Cost Plus Method applied by the assessee in arriving at the Anns Length Price without giving a valid explanation. The assessee also submitted that the method applied by the assessce was most appropriate. Dow Chemical International Private Limited as successor of Rohm and Hass (India) Private Limited ITA No. 7936/M/2019 19 5.2.5 We have gone through the Order by the TPO and find that the TPO has clearly mentioned the reasons for rejection of Cost Plus Method on account of non comparability of the selected companies at the entity level. Further, since the assessee was making à loss, it had adopted CPM so as to make comparability of gross margin with the comparables. The assessee is in gross error in trying to use cost plus method in case of an entrepreneur who is a manufacturer. 5.2.6 We have also noted that in the assessee's own case PM was rejected in A Y 2010-2011 & A Y 2011-2012, A.Yr. 2012-13 and A.Yr. 2014-15 by the DRP. Since the issue is covered against the assessee, we dismiss the ground of objection of the assessee.” (emphasis supplied externally) 14. The Ld. DRP, then discussed the selection of comparables under the TNMM. The Ld. DRP upheld selection of one comparable by the Ld. TPO as under: “7.2 Discussions & Directions of the DRP: It is noted that the TO, in his order, has adopted 4 companies (Jupiter Bioscience Limited, Fineotex Chemical Limited, Jubilant Life Sciences Limited, Vivimed Labs Limited) engaged in products which are in the manufacture of specialty chemicals as comparable companies. During the course of the transfer pricing assessment proceedings, the TP had provided an opportunity to the Assessee to provide reasons why the aforesaid companies could not be treated as comparable to the Assessee in relation to the international transaction under question. Dow Chemical International Private Limited as successor of Rohm and Hass (India) Private Limited ITA No. 7936/M/2019 20 The DRP does not agree with the assessee's contention that only one comparable cannot be adopted for delermining arm's length Price. The final set of comparable have been selected carefully having regard to FAR analysis of the assessee. The panel is in agreement with the methodology followed by the TPO and the same is upheld and the ground of objection no. 7 & 8 of assessee are dismissed.” 15. The Ld. DRP further directed to consider another company as comparable observing as under: “9.2 Discussion & Directions of the DRP: It is noted that the TPO, in his order, has adopted I company (Vivimed Labs Limited) engaged in products which are in the manufacture of specialty chemicals as comparable companies. During the course of the transfer pricing assessment proceedings, the TPO had identified from companies and had provided an opportunity to the Assessee to provide reasons why these companies could not be treated as comparable to the Assessee in relation to the international transaction under question. It is noted that the final set of comparables include only one company which is seen as a narrow set. The comparables have been selected having regard to FAR analysis of the assessee. However in the case of M/s Jupiter Biosciences Limited it is noted that the TPO was not able to get annual accounts of the company while passing the order W/s 92CA(3). In this regard the AO/IPO is directed to consider the possibility of including M/s Jupiter Biosciences Limited as a comparable if its annual report is now Dow Chemical International Private Limited as successor of Rohm and Hass (India) Private Limited ITA No. 7936/M/2019 21 available, in order to have a good set of comparables. The ground of objection no. 10 of assessee is disposed on these lines.” 16. The Ld. DRP further rejected the specific objection of the assessee in relation to the transactions of the import of raw material as under: “10.2 Discussion & Direction of the DRP: Import of Raw materials We have considered the facts of the case and submissions made by the assessee. The assessee in its submission argued that the TPO had rejected the CUP available in the form of market prices published by the ICIS applied by the assessee for arriving at the Arms Length Price for import of Raw Materials. The assessee has compared its purchase price with the dala spread over a few weeks and months available on the ICIS. The assessee in its submission has further stated that the TO has rejecled the CUP Method applied by the assessee in arriving at the Arms Length Price without giving a valid explanation. The assessee submitted that the method applied by it was most appropriate.” 17. Further the specific objection to the transactions of sale of finished goods were rejected by the Ld. DRP observing as under: “11.2 Discussions & Directions of the DRP: Sale of Finished Goods Dow Chemical International Private Limited as successor of Rohm and Hass (India) Private Limited ITA No. 7936/M/2019 22 11.2.1 We have considered the facts of the case and submissions made by the assessee. The assessee in its submission argued that the TPO had rejected the cost plus method applied by the assessee for arriving at the Arms Length Price for sale of finished goods. The assessee in its submission has further stated that the TPO has rejected the Cost Plus Method applied by the assessee in arriving at the Arms Length Price without giving a valid explanation. The assessee also submitted that the method applied by the assessee was most appropriate. 11.2.2 We have gone through the Order by the TPO and find that the TPO has clearly mentioned the reasons for rejection of Cost Plus Method on account of wrong use of PLI and non comparability of the comparables at the entity level. The method PM adopted by the assessce was also not found to be most appropriate. The assessce was in gross error in trying to use cost plus method in case of an entrepreneur who is a manufacturer. 11.2.3 We have also noted that in the assessee's own case PM was rejected in A Y 2010-2011 & A Y 2011-2012, A. Yr. 2012-13& 2014-15 by the DRP. Since the issue is covered against the assessee, we dismiss the grounds of objection number 16 & 17 of the assessee.” 18. Pursuant to the direction of Ld. DRP for selecting another comparable under TNMM, the Ld TPO, sought annual Report of M/s Jupiter bioscience Ltd for assessment year 2015-16 from the assessee company, however the assessee company expressed non- availability of the same. The Ld. Assessing Officer accordingly, Dow Chemical International Private Limited as successor of Rohm and Hass (India) Private Limited ITA No. 7936/M/2019 23 retained the transfer pricing adjustment of ₹24,38,56,927/- observing as under: “4.6 As directed by the Hon'ble DRP, the Id. TO has considered the possibility of including the name of M/s Jupiter Blosciences Limited. However, as the annual report of the said company are not available, it is not possible to include M/S Jupiter Biosciences Limited as a comparable by it. The Id. Transfer Pricing Officer, Jt. CIT(TP)-1(2), Mumbai, vide order passed under section 92CA(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 31.10.2018, had made an upward adjustment of Rs.24,38,56,927/- to the Arm's Length Price of transactions as reported by the assessee in Form No.3CEB pertaining to export of goods. The addition was confirmed by the Hon'ble DRP. Therefore, as required under section 92CA(4) of the Income- tax Act, 1961, an amount of Rs. 24,38,56,927/- (being the upward adjustment to the arm's length price) is treated as income of the assessee and the same is added to its total income.” 19. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that in assessment year 2014-15, an identical issue of selection of most appropriate method while determining arm’s-length price of international transactions of import of raw material and sale of finished goods was raised before the Tribunal. The Tribunal in ITA No. 6577/Mum/2018 has allowed CUP method as most appropriate method in view of availability of TIPS data and matter was restored Dow Chemical International Private Limited as successor of Rohm and Hass (India) Private Limited ITA No. 7936/M/2019 24 back to the Ld. AO/TPO for comparing the international transactions of the assessee with TIPS data. The assessee contended that in said assessment year also 94.23% of the total value of transactions was covered under the TIPS data for comparison. He further submitted that in compliance with the order of the Tribunal (supra), the Ld. TPO vide order dated 17/01/2022 after examining the additional evidences as directed by the Tribunal, has accepted the value of the transactions reported by the assessee at arm’s length and no adjustment has been proposed. Accordingly the Ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that in the year under consideration also the matter may be restored back to the Ld. AO/TPO for deciding afresh in view of the order of the TPO dated 17/01/2022. 20. On the contrary, the Ld. DR submitted that as far as applicability of CUP method is concerned, the comparable transactions should be uncontrolled and should be transactions of same time zone and same market in similar conditions. He Dow Chemical International Private Limited as successor of Rohm and Hass (India) Private Limited ITA No. 7936/M/2019 25 submitted that information whether the transactions reported in TIPS data is a related party transactions, is not available and in such circumstances are controlled transactions if any, cannot be compared with the transactions of the assessee under CUP method. 21. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. The Tribunal (supra) in the case of the assessee has decided the issue of selection of CUP method for determining arm’s-length price of transactions of purchase of raw material and finished goods in view of the availability of data of the TIPS as under: “13.8. We have heard rival submissions. Before us, the assessee filed additional evidence in the form of datawise comparison of export prices and market prices using TIPS Data Base under CUP method using aggregation / portfolio approach for 94.23% of the total exports made to AE's and pleaded for acceptance of the same. This was filed in addition to vehemently objecting to the adoption of TNMM as MAM. The ld. AR on without prejudice basis, vide letter dated 08/02/2019 also submitted that even if TNMM is to be adopted as MAM, the assessee segmental results pertaining to export of finished goods is required to be considered for benchmarking the international transaction of export of finished goods wherein assessee has earned operating margin of 25.14% on operating Dow Chemical International Private Limited as successor of Rohm and Hass (India) Private Limited ITA No. 7936/M/2019 26 cost. Accordingly, the operating margin earned by the assessee in respect of export to AEs was higher than the arithmetic mean of the operating margin earned by comparable companies selected in TP study (i.e. 2.55% companies selected by the ld. TPO for computing disallowance i.e. 17.86%, additional companies selected by the ld. TPO from emulsions companies i.e. 10.78%). 13.9. Per contra ld. DR vehemently objected to the admission of additional evidences filed before this Tribunal and reiterated the findings of the ld. DRP. We have already held in A.Y.2010-11 that additional ITA Nos.2199/Mum/2015 & 6577/Mum/2018 & SA No.261/Mum/2019 evidences filed by the assessee for import of raw materials using TIPS Data Base under CUP method is to be admitted as it covers majority of the international transactions carried out by the assessee. In the instant case in respect of export of finished goods, the comparable data using TIPS Data Base under CUP method covers 94.23% as stated by the ld. AR of the total value of the transactions. However, since this data requires factual examination of comparable prices by the ld. TPO, we deem it fit and appropriate to remand this issue to the file of the ld. TPO in the same directions as was given by us for import of raw materials from AEs for A.Y.2014-15 supra.” 21.1 We find that in assessment year 2014-15, factual examination of the comparable price was required and therefore matter was restored to the Ld. TPO. The Ld. TPO wide order dated 17/01/2022 has adjudicated the issue as under: “5. Determination of Arm's Length Price: Dow Chemical International Private Limited as successor of Rohm and Hass (India) Private Limited ITA No. 7936/M/2019 27 Notice u/s 92 CA(2) of the 1. T. Act dated 09/11/2021 and u/s 92 D(3) dated 27/12/2021 were issued to the assessee calling for details and documents along with documentary evidences in respect of international transactions entered into by the assessee in respect of import of raw materials and export of finished goods from its Associated Enterprises (AEs). In response to the notices, the assessee submitted its reply vide letter dated 11/01/2022. After considering the submissions and explanations of the assessee, the international transactions entered into by the assessee for import of raw materials and export of finished goodswith its associated enterprises during F.Y. 2013-14 relating to A.Y 2014-15 are treated at arm's length in the absence of any adverse inference drawn on the facts submitted by the assessee and material available on record. Therefore, the international transactions reported by the assessee are accepted to be at an arm's length and no adjustment is being made. 6. This decision is in response to specific reference u/s 92CA(1) received and will apply to the case of the assessee for A.Y. 2014-15.” 21.2 We are also of the view that in assessment year 2015-16 i.e. the year under consideration Ld. TPO is required to examine the comparability of the transactions on strict parameter of CUP method comparability after excluding the related party transactions from the set of the TIPS data base. Dow Chemical International Private Limited as successor of Rohm and Hass (India) Private Limited ITA No. 7936/M/2019 28 21.3 This exercise of examining comparability has already been carried out by the Ld. TPO in remand during DRP proceedings, wherein the TPO has rejected the comparability on the ground that geography and volume of the transactions was not available in the database. In our opinion, the Assessing Officer or the TPO has authority to call for complete information of the transactions of import of raw materials and export of finished goods from the Custom Authorities including invoices of import or export having details of geography and volume. The Ld. TPO may also remove the related party transactions from the relevant information. We note that Assessing Officer in assessment year 2014-15 has carried out exercise for comparing the international transactions of the assessee with the uncontrolled transactions available in TIPS data base and that too after the order of the Ld. DRP for year under consideration. In view of above, we feel it appropriate to restore the matter to the Ld. AO/TPO for comparing the TIPS data with the international transactions of the assessee under CUP method of comparability as Dow Chemical International Private Limited as successor of Rohm and Hass (India) Private Limited ITA No. 7936/M/2019 29 most appropriate method. In case, the CUP method fails, the Ld. AO/TPO may explore another methods including TNMM. The ground No. 10 to 11 and 15 to 17 of the appeal are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 22. In ground No. 1 to 9 the assessee has challenged rejection of Cost Plus Method (CPM) and instead adopting of Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as most appropriate method by the Ld. TPO. The assessee has also challenged rejection of comparable companies adopted by the assessee and selection of comparables by the Ld. TPO. The assessee also raised the issue of non-consideration of adjustment on account of functional and risk differences. The ground No. 12 to 14 are also in respect of TNMM method applied by the Ld. TPO. 23. As, we have already restored the matter of determination of arm’s length price of the international transactions of the assessee to the Ld. TPO for applying the CUP method as most appropriate Dow Chemical International Private Limited as successor of Rohm and Hass (India) Private Limited ITA No. 7936/M/2019 30 method, the grounds challenging the TNMM method are rendered academic only. The Ld. counsel of the assessee has also not argued these grounds. In the circumstances, we are not adjudicating these grounds at this stage. The ground Nos. 1 to 9 and 1 to 14 of the appeal are accordingly treated as infructuous. 24. The ground No. 18 and 19 of the appeal relate to compensation received of ₹17,87,49,236/-on termination of marketing support agreement, which is held as revenue in nature by the Ld. Assessing Officer. 25. The facts in brief qua, the issue in dispute are that the assessee credited a sum of ₹17,87,49,236/- in profit and loss account towards compensation for termination of contractual rights but reduced the same while computing total income, claiming the same to be a capital receipt. 26. The assessee submitted that it provides market support services for various products including Sodium Borohydride (SBH) Dow Chemical International Private Limited as successor of Rohm and Hass (India) Private Limited ITA No. 7936/M/2019 31 to its overseas group entities in USA, Taiwan, Singapore etc. since 1997 and earned commission income from rendering such services. On account of internal restructuring of the ‘Dow Group’ and streamlining the business operations, the sales promotion agreement with various group entities were replaced by a singular market support agreement dated 04/12/2014 between the assessee and Dow chemical Pacific Singapore Pte. Ltd. and its affiliates for marketing of various products of the Dow overseas entities including the SBH. A copy of the said market support agreement dated 04/12/2014 was filed before the Ld. Assessing Officer. The Ld. Assessing Officer noted that as per this agreement, the assessee was required to provide the marketing support for promotion of the product of the Dow group in the territory (i.e. India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Pakistan) and solicit orders from customers in such territory for each products. As per clause 8, the agreement was effective from 01/10/2014 till 31/12/2015, renewable every year. Dow Chemical International Private Limited as successor of Rohm and Hass (India) Private Limited ITA No. 7936/M/2019 32 27. The Ld. Assessing Officer noted that vide first amendment to the market support agreement dated 23/01/2015, the agreement dated 04/12/2014 was terminated in case of certain products i.e. Sodium Borohydride (SBH) and Trimethyl Borate (TMB). As per this amendment, the assessee was not required to provide the marketing support services of SBH products, but all other terms covenants agreements and conditions and other provisions of the market support agreement remained in force. The assessee had received ₹17,87,49,236/-as consideration for termination of the contractual rights and obligations regarding marketing support service of SBH. It is this amount which has been considered by the assessee as capital receipt on the ground that it has lost the source of income. It is the contention of the assessee that it was engaged in marketing and promoting the SBH product since 1997 and it has developed expertise for marketing/promotion of the SBH products over a period of time. Dow Chemical International Private Limited as successor of Rohm and Hass (India) Private Limited ITA No. 7936/M/2019 33 28. According to the Assessing Officer, compensation on account of termination of the contractual right was received during the course of normal business activity, and therefore it is revenue receipt. The Ld. Assessing Officer observed that agreement was effective from 04/12/2014 to 23/01/2015 i.e. for a period of 50 days only. The Ld. AO noted that the contract/agreement was for one year and renewable on year-to-year basis and therefore assessee cannot derive any capital rights from this contract agreement as it was an ongoing contract. Ld. AO rejected the contention of the assessee holding that termination of the contract for market support service has not resulted into termination or extinguishment of any unborn capital right of the assessee. 29. The Ld. DRP also rejected the contention of the assessee relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Blue Star Ltd (supra) observing as under: “12.2 Discussion & Direction of the DRP: Dow Chemical International Private Limited as successor of Rohm and Hass (India) Private Limited ITA No. 7936/M/2019 34 We have gone through the order of the AO/TO and the submissions of the assessee made in this regard. It is noted that the AO has held that the compensation of INR 17,87,49,236 received on termination of marketing support agreement for the SBH productis revenue in nature chargeable to tax as per section 28 of the Act. It is submitted that the AO has made addition without appreciating the fact that it resulted in loss of profit-making apparatus of the Assessee and therefore, Ought to be treated as capital receipt not chargeable to tax. The assessee has submitted that it provides market support services for various products including Sodium Borohydride (SBH) to its overseas group entities in USA. Taiwan. Singapore, etc. since 1997 and earned commission income from rendering such services. On account of the intemal restructuring of the bow Group and streamlining the business operations, the sales promotion agreements with various overseas group entities were replaced by a singular market support agreement dated 4 December 2014 between the Assessee, Dow Chemical Pacitic Singapore PIe Ltd (*Dow Singapore") and its affiliates for marketing various products of the Dow overseas entities including SBH. It is on this account payment was received by the assessee. In this regard it is noted that the order of the Division Bench of Mumbai High Court in Blue Star Ltd. v. CIT [1996] 217 ITR 514/ 1995] 79 Taxman 281 (Bom) is applicable to the facts of this case. The Division Bench held as under: 6. The question whether a particular income arising from termination of a contract is a "capital receipt" or a "revenue receipt" is undoubtedly a difficult question to be answered. Where, on a consideration of the circumstances, a payment is made to compensate a person for cancellation of a contract which does not affect the trading structure of the recipient's business nor deprive the recipient of what in substance is the source of income, termination of contract being a normal incident of the business, Dow Chemical International Private Limited as successor of Rohm and Hass (India) Private Limited ITA No. 7936/M/2019 35 and such cancellation leaves the recipient of the amount free to carry on his trade, the receipt is "revenue". However, where by cancellation of agency the trading structure of the assessee is impaired or such cancellation results in the loss of what may be regarded as the source of the assessee's income, payment made to compensate for such cancellation of agency agreement is normally a "capital receipt". In the facts of the case, we are required to consider as to whether the sum of Rs. 5 lakhs received by the assessee was received to compensate the assessee for cancellation of the said agreement with BME which did not affect the trading structure of the assessee not deprive the assessee of what in substance was its source of income or by cancellation of the said agreement, the trading structure of the assessee was impaired or such cancellation resulted in loss of source of the assessee's income. Considering the nature of the said agreement and perusing the various clauses contained therein in our view, the said agreement culminating in a contract between the assessee and BME was in the nature of normal trading contract entered into in the ordinary course of the assessee's business. The assessee carried on widespread business activities as is evident even from the assessment order for the relevant assessment year showing the taxable income of the assessee at more than Rs. 86 lakhs. The agency agreement of the assessee with BME as borne out from the said agreement was only one of the many activities of the assessee. The widespread nature of business activities carried on by the assessee were not adversely affected by the termination of the said agreement and in the facts of the case, it cannot be said that there was cessation of business resulting in destruction of the source of income so far as the assessee is concerned. The said agency agreement was entered into by the assessee in the normal course within the framework of the normal business of the assessee and the termination thereof could be treated as a normal incident of the business. Even with the termination of the said agreement, the assessee was left free to carry on its normal trading activities. By cancellation of the agency, the trading structure of the assessee was not impaired. In the facts of the case, we hold that the compensation amount of Rs. 5 lakhs received by the assessee was not in the nature of "capital receipt". It was in the nature of "revenue receipt". Dow Chemical International Private Limited as successor of Rohm and Hass (India) Private Limited ITA No. 7936/M/2019 36 It is noted that the assessee admittedly had other service and distribution contracts and the assessee is engaged in several other lines of activities during the year. It is also noted that the assessee has not established that the termination of the marketing support agreement for the SBH producthas resulted in a loss of source of income or has affected its other trading contracts. The marketing contract was but one of the many contracts that the assessee had entered into. It was one of the many activities that the assessee had engaged in and that the assessee is not prevented in any manner whatsoever from continuing a similar line of business with other enterprises. In view of this the panel finds itself in agreement with the AO that the receipt on termination of the marketing support agreementfor the SBH productis taxable as a revenue receipt under the IT Act.In view of this the ground of objection number 18 of the assessee is dismissed.” 30. Before us Ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that compensation received on account of cancellation/termination of the market support agreement is loss of income bearing apparatus and therefore compensation received is capital in nature and not chargeable to tax. The Ld. counsel attempted to distinguish the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Blue Star Ltd (supra) explaining that in aforesaid case lump-sum payment was received by Blue Star Ltd. towards assigning its rights in favour of another company which was specializing in the particular line, however in the case of the assessee there is no assignment, in fact Dow Chemical International Private Limited as successor of Rohm and Hass (India) Private Limited ITA No. 7936/M/2019 37 market support agreement got terminated on account of business being transferred by ‘Dow Singapore to’ independent third-party. According to the Ld. counsel role of the assessee was to perform marketing, liaison activity and facilitation before the contract is concluded by the ‘Dow Singapore’. The final customer dealings are done by the ‘Dow Singapore’ and the contract is signed and concluded with the ‘Dow Singapore’. Hence, the compensation received is not for termination of an agency contract but forgoing its market supporting rights vested for promoting SBH productions since 1997 in particular territory and therefore ratio in the case of Blue Star Ltd’s (supra) does not apply to the facts of the instant case. 31. The Ld. counsel also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kettlewell Bullen and Co. Ltd (53 ITR 261). 32. The Ld. counsel filed a chart of cases against and in favour of the assessee, which are reproduced as under: Dow Chemical International Private Limited as successor of Rohm and Hass (India) Private Limited ITA No. 7936/M/2019 38 Case laws against the assessee: 1. S. Kumars Tyre Mfg. Co. Ltd. 61 ITD 326 (Indore Tribunal) 2. Elegant Chemicals Enterprises (P) Ltd. 91 ITD 85 (Hyderabad Tribunal) 3. Hinditron Services (P.) Ltd. 99 ITD 479 (Mumbai Tribunal) 4. Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd. 19 SOT 391 (Delhi Tribunal) 5. IIT Corporate Services Ltd. 4 ITR (T) 147 (Mumbai Tribunal) 6. Bayer (India) Ltd. 20 taxmann.com 313 (Mumbai Tribunal) 7. Kochi Refineries Ltd. 4 ITR (T) 95 (Mumbai Tribunal) 8. Ion Exchange (India) Ltd. 130 ITD 318 (Mumbai Tribunal) 9. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. 26 taxmann.com 245 (Bombay HC) Case law in favour of the assessee 1. N. Sandeep Reddy 95 ITD 33 (Hyderabad Tribunal) 2. Sri K.S.N. Enterprises (P.) Ltd. 105 ITD 375 (Hyderabad Tribunal) 3. Kwality Cafe & Restaurant (P.) Ltd. 105 ITD 169 (Chandigarh Tribunal) 4. Khanna & Annadhaman 351 ITR 110 (Delhi HC) 33. On the contrary, the Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. The Ld. DR also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ansel properties and industries Ltd (supra), relied upon by the Assessing Officer. Dow Chemical International Private Limited as successor of Rohm and Hass (India) Private Limited ITA No. 7936/M/2019 39 34. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. It is undisputed that assessee received compensation from the Associated Enterprises. Under the agreement dated 04/12/2014 the assessee agreed for providing market support services including informing the customers about the products and supplying the said database to the group company in respect of the various products of the group including SBH. By way of amendment dated 23 rd January 2015 only the product SBH was delisted from said agreement dated 04/12/2014. The assessee has shown receipt of ₹5,34,59,252/-as marketing support service commission from Dow group and also received compensation of ₹17,87,49,236/-. The contention of the assessee that said compensation is respect of loss of source of income and therefore it is capital in nature and not chargeable to tax. The Ld. DRP relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Blue Star Ltd (supra) has held the compensation as revenue in nature. The Hon’ble High Court has held that Dow Chemical International Private Limited as successor of Rohm and Hass (India) Private Limited ITA No. 7936/M/2019 40 cancellation of the contract which does not affect the trading structure of the recipients business and such cancellation leaves the recipient of the amount, free to carry on his trade, the receipt is revenue. In the case of the assessee also there was no restriction on the assessee to carry out his activity of marketing support services to anyone. By way of cancellation of marketing support service agreement in respect of SBH, there is no damage or impairment to the trading structure of the assessee. There was no removal of any employee of the marketing team by way of amendment in agreement and therefore there is no loss of source of income. The entire team of marketing support as capable of rendering services as was before the termination of market support of SBH. Moreover, the marketing team was providing marketing support in respect of other product after termination of assessment for SBH. In the case of Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. (supra) also it is held that where payment is made to compensate the person for cancellation of the contract, which does not affect the trading structure of his business Dow Chemical International Private Limited as successor of Rohm and Hass (India) Private Limited ITA No. 7936/M/2019 41 or deprive him of what in substance is a source of income, termination of the contract being a normal incident of the business and such cancellation leaves him free to carry on his trade (freed from the contract terminated), the receipt is revenue. 35. In our opinion, the Ld. DRP has followed a binding precedent of the jurisdictional High Court, and therefore we do not find any error in the impugned order on the issue in dispute, and accordingly we uphold the same. The ground Nos. 18 and19 of the appeals are accordingly dismissed. 36. The ground No. 20 is in respect of charging of interest of ₹7,94,439/- under section 234A of the Act. 37. Before us the Ld. counsel of the assessee has contended that the assessee filed its return of income on 27/11/2015, whereas due date prescribed for filing return of income under section 139 (1) during relevant assessment year was 30/11/2015 and therefore interest under section 234A has been wrongly levied. Both the Dow Chemical International Private Limited as successor of Rohm and Hass (India) Private Limited ITA No. 7936/M/2019 42 parties agreed that issue is for verification by the Assessing Officer and accordingly, the issue in dispute is restored to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer for deciding in accordance with law after verifying the facts on the record. The ground No. 20 of the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 38. The ground No. 21 is in respect of charging of interest in the section 234B of the Act, which being consequential in nature, the ground No. 21 is dismissed as infructuous. 39. The ground No. 22 of the appeal in respect of initiating penalty proceedings, which being premature at this stage, same is dismissed as infructuous. 40. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 19/05/2022. Sd/- Sd/- (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dow Chemical International Private Limited as successor of Rohm and Hass (India) Private Limited ITA No. 7936/M/2019 43 Mumbai; Dated: 19/05/2022 Dragon Legal/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. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Sr. Private Secretary) ITAT, Mumbai