TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT LTU, MUMBAI

MA 218/MUM/2022

AI Insights

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. (TCS) filed a Miscellaneous Application under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking recall or rectification of a previous Tribunal order that treated interest-free loans to associated enterprises as international transactions. The Tribunal's earlier decision, which was based on the application of LIBOR plus a markup for interest on such loans, was contested by TCS. The Tribunal reviewed the submissions and the legal precedents cited by TCS but ultimately found no grounds to alter the previous ruling, leading to the dismissal of the application.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 299646 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 08-01-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 13-10-2022
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 21-08-2022
• Other Referred Cases: DLF Hotel Holdings Ltd v. DCIT, Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd v. DCIT, Tata Consultancy Service Ltd vs ACIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Opportunity of being heard; International transaction; Wholly owned subsidiary; Set aside
• Section: 92B; 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. no.218/Mum./2022 IN ITA no.17/Mum./2011 (Assessment Year : 2006–07) Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. 9 th Floor, Nirmal Building Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 PAN – AAACR4849R ................ Applicant (Original Appellant) v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Large Tax Unit, Mumbai ................Respondent (Original Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Porus Kaka, Shri Manish Kant Revenue by : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha Date of Hearing – 14/10/2022 Date of Order – 09/01/2023 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. By way of this Miscellaneous Application filed under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), the assessee seeks recall/rectification of the order dated 06/04/2022, passed under section 254(1) of the Act by the Co– ordinate Bench of Tribunal in assessee’s appeal being ITA no.17/Mum./2011, for the assessment year 2006–07, to the extent of adjudication of grounds no.11.2 and 11.3. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. M.A. no.218/Mum./2022 Page | 2 2. For ready reference, the submissions made in the Miscellaneous Application are as under: “3. The appeals for AY 2006-07 and AY 2011-12 were heard together on 2nd February 2022. In course of the hearing for the aforementioned grounds, the Applicant relied upon the coordinate bench's ruling in its own case for AY 2009- 10. The coordinate bench of the tribunal while adjudicating the issue in AY 2009-10 had set-aside the issue for a fresh consideration by the Assessing Officer in light of another coordinate bench's ruling in DLF Hotel Holdings Ltd v. DCIT, ITA NO 6336/Del/2012. Further, the Hon'ble tribunal after hearing the submissions of the Appellant on the aforesaid issue in AY 2006-07, directed the Appellant to file a short note along with its financials disclosing the interest free loan transactions and the coordinate bench's rulings in DLF Holdings (supra) or others as these were not available at the time of hearing. 4. On 7th February 2022, the Appellant filed a short note along with its relevant financials and rulings of the coordinate bench of the Hon'ble tribunal in the case of DLF Holdings (supra) and jurisdictional tribunal in Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd v. DCIT, ITA No. 298/Mum/2014 both of which are rulings directly on the point of dispute related to the issue whether the grant of interest free loans by the assessee to its AEs to downstream acquisition of companies or other purposes qualify as a quasi-equity and therefore not an international transaction as defined under the Act. The Applicant also filed a copy of the same with the office of learned Departmental Representative. 5. The applicant received the order dated 06th April, 2022 of this Hon'ble Tribunal on 26th April, 2022. Paragraph 149 (page 67) of the order refers to discussion on provision of interest free loans as follows: “152. During the course of hearing, learned Sr. Counsel submitted that the money was advanced to the subsidiaries as a share capital and therefore cannot be treated as interest free loan. Learned Sentor Counsel further submitted that before the loan was granted its objective was clear. By referring to the order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 2009-10, learned Senior Counsel submitted that similar issue has been restored to the file of Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The learned D.R. vehemently relied upon the orders passed by lower authorities." 6. Further, the Hon'ble Tribunal has also examined the facts for A.Y. 2006-07 in order as follows: 153. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee acquired certain Australian companies / group and for this purpose, the assessee set up FNS Australia as its 100% subsidiary as the special purpose vehicle for such acquisition. The assessee remitted the amount of AUD 36,258,815 (equivalent to Rs. 122,71,11,028) to ENS, Australia so that FNS, Australia could disburse the acquisition price to the erstwhile shareholders of the target companies/group. Similarly, the assessee acquired Swedish company through its wholly owned subsidiary TCS Sverige AB, Sewden. For this purpose, the assessee remitted the amount of USD 4.5 millions (equivalent to Rs 19,58,85,000) to its subsidiary so that same can be disbursed Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. M.A. no.218/Mum./2022 Page | 3 as a acquisition price to the erstwhile shareholders of acquired Swedish company. 7. The Hon'ble Tribunal therefore disposed the appeal by its Order dated 06th April 2022 wherein the Hon'ble tribunal after noting the submissions made at the time of hearing has erroneously relied upon its findings made for AY 2011- 12 where no similar ground of appeal was raised by the Appellant due to quantum reasons. The Hon'ble tribunal has erroneously followed its findings for dismissing Department's appeal for AY 2011-12 which was only on the rate to be charged as post DRP the transfer pricing adjustment was deleted and consequently due to quantum reasons the Appellant did not file any appeal on the legal issue of quasi equity not being an international transaction under the Act before the Hon'ble tribunal for AY 2011-12. The Hon'ble tribunal therefore in AY 2006-07 has erroneously not adjudicated the issue on the interest free loans being in the nature of quasi-equity cannot be an international transaction for the purposes of transfer pricing as defined under the Act. 8. Further, while concluding in order of A.Y. 2006-07 the Hon'ble Tribunal direct the TPO / Assessing Officer to compute the adjustment in respect of loan to AEs for the relevant assessment year by applying rate of interest of LIBOR, which will further be marked up with basis points., without adjudicating the issue of the transaction being in the nature of a quasi equity and therefore not an international transaction under the Act as held by coordinate bench of the Hon'ble tribunal in Bennett Coleman (Supra) and DLF Holdings (Supra) in similar circumstances. The aforesaid ruling in case of Bennet Coleman (Supra) is of the jurisdictional bench of this Hon'ble tribunal and adjudicates the similar issue in favour of the assessee. The Hon'ble tribunal has erroneously neither discussed nor considered the aforementioned rulings in the order. The Hon'ble tribunal has also erroneously overlooked the ruling in the Applicant's own case for AY 2009-10 on similar grounds despite having noted the Applicant's submission on the same. Thus, the Applicant has proposed Miscellaneous Appeal against the order for AY. 2006-07 before the Hon'ble Tribunal with respect to provision of interest free loans. Considering the order for A.Y. 2006- 07 draw reference from A.Y. 2009-10 order, consequential effect, if any, shall also be given to A.Y. 2006-07 order. 9. In the light of above mistake apparent from record, Applicant respectfully prays that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to recall / rectify the error in the order to the extent it relates to the Applicant's grouns of appeal nos. 11.2 and 11.3 before the Hon'ble tribunal, with reference to outcome of Miscellaneous Appeal for A.Y. 2006-07.” 3. Thus, as per the assessee, while deciding assessee’s ground of appeal No. 11.2 and 11.3, the coordinate bench of the Tribunal has erroneously followed its findings rendered in Revenue’s appeal, for assessment year 2011– 12, in assessee’s own case. Further, the coordinate bench of the Tribunal has Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. M.A. no.218/Mum./2022 Page | 4 not adjudicated the issue of whether interest-free loans, being in the nature of quasi-equity, is an international transaction under the Act. The assessee also submitted that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the decision rendered by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2009–10 on similar grounds as well as other decisions of the Tribunal wherein similar issue has been decided in favour of the taxpayer. Accordingly, the assessee has prayed for recall/rectification of the Tribunal’s order dated 06/04/2022, to the extent it relates to grounds of appeal No. 11.2 and 11.3. 4. On the other hand, the Revenue has objected to the prayer made in the present Miscellaneous Application. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006–07 was heard by the Tribunal on 02/02/2022, along with cross-appeal for assessment year 2011–12 in assessee’s own case and the said appeals were adjudicated vide consolidated order dated 06/04/2022. 6. While dealing with ground No. 3 raised by the Revenue in its appeal for assessment year 2011–12, wherein the Revenue has challenged the findings of the learned DRP accepting the interest charged by the assessee on loans provided to associated enterprises in the range of 4% to 5% by applying LIBOR plus 300 to 400 basis points, the Tribunal noted following facts in para 99 and 100 of its aforesaid order: Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. M.A. no.218/Mum./2022 Page | 5 “99. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue as emanating from the record are: During the relevant assessment year, the assessee received the interest from following A.Es. on account of loan outstanding:  TCS Iberoamerica S.A.  TCS FNS Pty. Ltd.  TCS Morocco SARL AU 100. As per the assessee, no new loan was granted by the assessee to its A.Es. during the year. The loans subsisting during the year or part of the year (due to repayments) were given in prior years either for acquisition of downstream subsidiaries by the A.Es. or for working capital requirements. The primary contention of the assessee was that loans given to the A.Es. are in quasi equity in nature and are extended for ultimate benefit of the assessee and thus no interest was charged. The assessee on without prejudice basis, charged interest at a rate which was derived by considering the prevailing LIBOR and added a mark-up on same for various risks. The TPO vide order dated 23.01.2015 passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act rejected the submissions of the assessee and benchmarked the transaction by applying the interest rate paid by the assessee on borrowed funds i.e. 9.75% and added further mark up of 3% in order to cover various risk factors. Thus, by applying total interest at the rate of 12.75% and also after reducing the interest already charged by the assessee, on without prejudice basis, the TPO made an adjustment of Rs. 40,45,95,104/- to the international transaction of loans provided to A.Es. The Assessing Officer passed the draft assessment order dated 16.02.2015, inter-alia, on the basis of adjustment proposed by the TPO. The DRP vide directions dated 16.11.2015 issued under section 144C(5) of the Act rejected the objections filed by the assessee and upheld the findings of TPO to the extent of benchmarking the transaction by applying the interest rate. However, the DRP, following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in VVF Ltd. v/s DCIT (2012) 31 CCH 0474 Mum.Trib, observed as under: “In the present case, the assessee has charged interest on loans in the range of 4% to 5% by calculating applying the principle of LIBOR plus 300 to 400 basis points. In view of these circumstances, the TPO is directed not to make any further adjustment on this issue. Thus, this ground of objection of the assessee company is accepted and the AO/TPO is directed to modify the draft assessment order accordingly.” 7. Vide aforesaid order dated 06/04/2022, the Tribunal proceeded to affirm the directions issued by the learned DRP and dismissed ground No. 3 raised by the Revenue in its appeal for assessment year 2011-12. From the aforesaid findings of fact, recorded in para 100 of the aforesaid order dated 06/04/2022 for assessment year 2011–12, it is pertinent to note that the loans were given by the assessee in prior years either for the acquisition of downstream Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. M.A. no.218/Mum./2022 Page | 6 subsidiaries by the associated enterprises or for working capital requirements and no new loan was granted by the assessee during the year. At this stage, it is also pertinent to note that no appeal was filed by the assessee in assessment year 2011–12 before the Tribunal on the issue of aforesaid loans provided to associated enterprises being treated as an international transaction, though the assessee had raised specific objection before the learned DRP in this regard, which was rejected by the learned DRP vide paragraph 17.2 of its directions. 8. In its appeal for assessment year 2006–07, the assessee, inter-alia, raised following grounds challenging the transfer pricing adjustment on account of interest-free loans given by the assessee to its associated enterprises: “11 GRANTING OF INTEREST FREE LOANS 11.1 The Learned DCIT/ TPO erred on facts in making and the DRP erred in upholding the international transaction of granting of interest free loans by the Appellant to the associated enterprises to not be at arm's length and confirming adjustment of Rs. 41,028,373 in this regard. 11.2 The Learned DCIT/ TPO and/or the DRP erred in disregarding the fact that the loans given by the appellant are in substance 'quasi-equity' in nature and as a part of shareholder's activity on which returns are not expected in the form of interest. 11.3 Without prejudice to the aforesaid grounds, the Learned DCIT/TPO and/or the DRP erred in ignoring Appellant's contention that if interest was to be considered, it should be considered at LIBOR plus 44 basis points (ie. the rate at which associated enterprise had been able to borrow in the international market).” 9. Vide aforesaid order dated 06/04/2022, the Tribunal adjudicated ground No. 11 by observing as under: Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. M.A. no.218/Mum./2022 Page | 7 “153. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee acquired certain Australian companies / group and for this purpose, the assessee set up FNS, Australia as its 100% subsidiary as the special purpose vehicle for such acquisition. The assessee remitted the amount of AUD 36,258,815 (equivalent to Rs. 122,71,11,028) to FNS, Australia so that FNS, Australia could disburse the acquisition price to the erstwhile shareholders of the target companies/group. Similarly, the assessee acquired Swedish company through its wholly owned subsidiary TCS Sverige AB, Sewden. For this purpose, the assessee remitted the amount of USD 4.5 millions (equivalent to Rs.19,58,85,000) to its subsidiary so that same can be disbursed as a acquisition price to the erstwhile shareholders of acquired Swedish company. 154. While dealing with facts for the assessment year 2011-12, we noticed that the assessee received the interest on account of loan outstanding from its various A.Es., including TCS FNS Pty. Ltd., Australia. It was also noticed from the facts on record for assessment year 2011-12 that the loan was granted in prior years to the said subsidiary, inter-alia, for purpose of acquisition of downstream subsidiaries. The assessee, on a without prejudice basis, charged interest at a rate which was derived by considering the prevailing LIBOR and added a mark-up on same for various risks. Ultimately, said benchmarking, by applying LIBOR and adding a mark-up, in respect of loans was accepted by the DRP and no further adjustment was directed to be made. We, while deciding the Revenue’s appeal being ITA No. 1054/Mum/2016 for assessment year 2011-12, have upheld the aforesaid conclusion reached by the DRP and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. At the outset, we are of the view that the adjustment made by TPO by adopting rate of interest of 6% based on loan given by the assessee itself to another A.E. is not a valid CUP as the transaction is also between the related parties, thus to this extent order passed by the TPO and upheld by the DRP is set aside. Further, as we have already upheld the benchmarking of this transaction of loan to the A.Es., inter-alia, for the purpose of acquisition of downstream subsidiaries, for assessment year 2011-12 by applying the principle of LIBOR plus 300 to 400 basis points, we direct the TPO / Assessing Officer to compute the adjustment in respect of loan to A.Es. for the relevant assessment year by applying rate of interest of LIBOR, which will further be marked up with basis points. We further direct that the quantification of markup shall be done by the TPO / Assessing Officer after hearing the assessee. As a result, ground no.11 raised in assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.” 10. Thus, as is evident from the above, the Tribunal took into consideration the fact that in assessment year 2006–07, the assessee granted loan, inter- alia, to its associated enterprises viz. TCS FNS Pty. Ltd., Australia, and in assessment year 2011–12 the assessee received interest on account of loan outstanding from its various associated enterprises including TCS FNS Pty. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. M.A. no.218/Mum./2022 Page | 8 Ltd., Australia and the said loan was granted in years prior to assessment year 2011-12, inter-alia, for the purpose of acquisition of downstream subsidiaries. Further, it was noted that on the said loan the assessee, on without prejudice basis, charged interest at the rate which was derived by considering the prevailing LIBOR and added a mark-up on same for various risks. Thus, in view of the above, in line with its findings rendered in assessment year 2011– 12, the Tribunal directed the TPO/AO to compute the adjustment in respect of loan granted to associated enterprises in assessment year 2006–07 by applying the rate of interest of LIBOR and mark-up on same be quantified. 11. Thus, from the combined reading of findings of the Tribunal vide aforesaid order dated 06/04/2022, in assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2006–07 and cross-appeal for assessment year 2011–12, it is evident that firstly, in both the assessment years, the claim of the assessee is that the loan has been granted to the associated enterprises, inter-alia, for the acquisition of downstream subsidiaries and secondly, in both the assessment years, the TPO treated the loan granted by the assessee to its associated enterprises as an international transaction and computed the transfer pricing adjustment. However, in assessment year 2006–07, the assessee vide ground No. 11 challenged the finding of the TPO/AO/learned DRP of treating the transaction of the grant of loan to the associated enterprises as an international transaction, while in assessment year 2011–12, despite the transaction being held as an international transaction, as noted above, the assessee chose not to challenge the said finding before the Tribunal and agreed to the computation of adjustment as determined by the learned DRP, which was further upheld by Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. M.A. no.218/Mum./2022 Page | 9 the Tribunal dismissing Revenue’s appeal. In paragraph 7 of the present miscellaneous application, it has been submitted that due to quantum reasons the assessee did not file any appeal on the legal issue of quasi-equity not being an international transaction under the Act before the Tribunal for assessment year 2011–12. The consequence of the above submission is that on one hand, in assessment year 2006–07, the said transaction has been claimed to be mere quasi-equity in nature and therefore not an international transaction for the purpose of the Act, while in assessment year 2011–12, the very same transaction has been agreed to be an international transaction by the assessee. In our considered view, the aforesaid approach merely creates inconsistency regarding the nature of the transaction in two different assessment years in assessee’s case, particularly when the intention of the grant of loan in both the assessment years is the same and one of the associated enterprises is also found to be common in both the assessment years. Thus, in view of the above, a transaction which is held to be an international transaction by the lower authorities in one assessment year and not challenged further by the assessee, cannot be treated as not an international transaction in another assessment year. 12. Further, as regards the reliance placed upon the decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in Tata Consultancy Service Ltd vs ACIT, in ITA No.5713/Mum./2016, for the assessment year 2009–10, we find that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal vide its order dated 30/10/2019, restored the issue to the file of Assessing Officer for de Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. M.A. no.218/Mum./2022 Page | 10 novo adjudication. The relevant findings of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the aforesaid decision are as under: “37. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. We have also carefully gone through the case law cited before us. Notably, right from the stage of transfer pricing proceeding itself the assessee has taken a stand that loans and advances to the AEs are in the nature of quasi equity, hence, cannot be treated as loan simpliciter. It is relevant to observe, the transfer pricing adjustment made on account of interest is in respect of loans advanced to four overseas AEs. From the details available on record, it is noticed that major portion of loans advanced to TCS Ibero America, is for acquisition of downstream subsidiary and about 20% of the advance was for working capital. Money advanced to TCS FNS Pty. Ltd., Australia, was purely for acquisition of downstream subsidiary. Similarly, advance to TCS Asia Pacific Pty. Ltd., is for acquisition of downstream subsidiary. Only the advance made to TCS Morocco is for working capital requirement. It is further noted, major part of advances made to TCS Ibero America, TCS FNS Pty. Ltd. and TCS Morocco have been converted to equity subsequently. It is also a fact on record that before learned Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee has filed a detailed written submission on 27 th March 2014, elaborately discussing the nature of advance made to the AEs and the purpose for which such advances were made. It was submitted by the assessee that the advances made to the AEs were as a part of business strategy and not simply to help the AEs with capital infusion. The assessee has advanced detailed argument stating that advances made to the AEs is a shareholder activity and not advancement of loan. In this context, the assessee has referred to OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines as well as UK and Australian Regulations. It is evident from the impugned order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), though, he sketchily referred to some of the submissions made by the assessee, however, he has not at all dealt with them in an effective manner. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), though, has observed that the loans advanced were not merely for downstream acquisition but for a variety of purpose including working capital requirement and other business uses, however, he has not elaborated as to for what other purpose loans were advanced. Without properly dealing with the factual aspect of the issue, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has jumped to the legal aspect and has held that the amount advanced by the assessee is in the nature of loan and has to be benchmarked as such. After considering the submissions of the parties and examining the material on record, we are convinced that various submissions made by the assessee before learned Commissioner (Appeals) have not at all been dealt with. The primary contention of the assessee that the advance made to the AEs is in the nature of quasi equity and falls within shareholder’s activity has not been properly addressed by the Departmental Authorities keeping in view the ratio laid down in the relevant case laws. It also requires deliberation whether it can be considered as an international transaction under section 92B r/w Explanation–1(c). Since, the aforesaid legal and factual aspects have not been considered properly, we are inclined to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Assessing Officer must examine all relevant facts to find out the exact nature of the advances made to the AEs. He should also examine the applicability of the ratio laid down Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. M.A. no.218/Mum./2022 Page | 11 in the case of DLF Hotel Holdings Ltd. (supra) and any other case laws which may be cited before him. The assessee must be afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard. Ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 13. Thus, it is evident that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the aforesaid decision did not render any finding as regards the issue of whether the transaction of the grant of loan by the assessee to its associated enterprises is an international transaction for the purpose of the Act. However, as is evident from the above, the Tribunal vide order dated 06/04/2022, after taking into consideration the facts as noted above directed the TPO to benchmark the transaction of loan to associated enterprises by applying the rate of interest of LIBOR, which will further be marked up with basis points. Insofar as the other 2 decisions of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal, as mentioned in the present Miscellaneous Application, we find that in none of the decisions it was a fact that in one year the transaction was accepted to be an international transaction, while in the year under consideration, it was challenged. 14. As regards the submission of the assessee that in assessment year 2006-07, the Tribunal has not adjudicated the issue of whether interest-free loans, being in the nature of quasi-equity, is an international transaction under the Act, we are of the considered opinion that once the Tribunal has directed the TPO to benchmark the said transaction, in lines with the assessment year 2011–12, by applying the interest rate of LIBOR and further markup, it is but consequential that said benchmarking can only be done when the transaction is considered to be an international transaction. Further, as is evident from the Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. M.A. no.218/Mum./2022 Page | 12 findings in para 154 of the aforesaid order dated 06/04/2022, the order passed by the TPO and upheld by the DRP was set aside only to the extent of the rate of interest adopted for benchmarking the international transaction. Therefore, in view of our aforesaid findings, we find no merits in the present Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 15. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 09/01/2023 Sd/- PRASHANT MAHARISHI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 09/01/2023 Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The CIT(A); (4) The CIT, Mumbai City concerned; (5) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; (6) Guard file. True Copy By Order Pradeep J. Chowdhury Sr. Private Secretary Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai