ORDER
1. These appeals filed by the Assessee are arising out of order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 16, Chennai (in short “ld.CIT(A)”) against orders u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 92CA(3) r.w.s 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) for the assessment years (AY) 2017-18 and 2018-19 dated 27.05.2025.
2. Since the facts are common/identical and the issue of assessee’s claim of depreciation on goodwill arising on amalgamation is common for these two assessment years, for the sake of convenience, the appeals filed by the Assessee are being heard together and disposed of by this consolidated order.
3. The Assessee was incorporated in 2005 and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bally Technologies Inc., USA/SG Gaming Inc. (currently known as LNW Gaming Inc.). Since 2005, the assessee is undertaking captive software development services for its group companies. The registered office of the assessee is situated at Chennai and operates through its centres in Chennai and Bangalore. The Assessee filed its return of income for the AY 2017-18 declaring its income as Rs.36,16,73,020/- and for AY 2018-19 declaring its income as Rs.42,50,52,540/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and issued statutory notices accordingly.
4. The Assessee has claimed depreciation on goodwill upon amalgamation which was rejected by the AO and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). The brief facts relating to this issue is that the Assessee acquired 32,35,187 shares of WMS Gaming Solutions India Private Ltd from Bally Gaming Inc., USA for a cash consideration of Rs.33.97 crores on 24.03.2016. Post acquisition, the WMS India got amalgamated with the Assessee under the scheme of amalgamation sanctioned by the Hon’ble Madras High Court by the order dated 16.12.2016. The Assessee has adopted “pooling of interest method” for accounting the amalgamation. In this method the Assessee has recognised the assets and liabilities of WMS India at book value as reflected under Note 26 of Financials for the year ended 31.03.2017. The netbook value of WMS India was Rs.3.24 crores whereas the original cost of acquisition of the shares was at Rs.33.97 crores. Therefore, the difference between the cost of acquisition of shares and net book value of WMS India (i.e.Rs.3.97 crores) was recorded as goodwill and the same was written off/reduced from the surplus in the statement of profit and loss account. However, for tax purposes the Assessee has claimed depreciation on goodwill at the rate of 25%, which came to be disallowed by the AO on multiple grounds.
5. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who has also confirmed the order of the AO denying depreciation on goodwill by giving the following reasons:
| (a) |
|
Goodwill did not form part of block of assets of WMS India as contemplated by Explanation 7 to Section 43(1) and Explanation 2 to Section 43(6)(c). |
| (b) |
|
Section 49(1)(iii)(e) prescribes cost of any asset acquired and amalgamation to the cost of the previous owner and since WMS India does not record any cost, no cost can be claimed by as Assessee. |
| (c) |
|
Section 55(2)(a)(iii) introduced by Finance Act, 2021 prohibits ascribing any cost to goodwill. |
| (d) |
|
6th Proviso to Section 32(1) prevents recognition of goodwill created on amalgamation |
| (e) |
|
Scheme of amalgamation is silent on goodwill |
| (f) |
|
Valuation report of goodwill deserves to be rejected as it arrives at a valuation higher than that recorded by the Assessee and accordingly it is an afterthought |
| (g) |
|
The decision relied on by the assessee are distinguishable as they do not consider the various sections referred to earlier. |
6. The Ld.AR contended that this issue is squarely covered by the jurisdictional Tribunal decision in the case of
Asstt. CIT v.
FLSmidth (P.) Ltd. (
Chennai –
Trib.)/(ITA No.1682/CHNY/2024) and all the aforesaid aspects are considered by this Tribunal in FL Smidth case (
supra).
7. The Ld.DR filed written submissions and heavily relied on the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of ACIT v. Dosti Realty Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 2043 (Mum) of 2022, dated 13-4-2023], orders of the lower authorities and vehemently opposed that the order of the CIT(A) should not be reversed. In response the Ld.AR had also filed their rejoinder.
8. We have heard the rival contentions and various material available on record. At the outset, we wish to acknowledge that the issue on hand is in relation to depreciation on goodwill upon amalgamation whether it is allowable or not? As pointed out by the Ld.AR this issue is no more res integra and we have already decided this issue by considering various contentions as was mentioned by the ld.CIT(A) in the impugned order and after a detailed discussion this Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of Assessee by holding the depreciation on goodwill is allowable and it has also held that even in respect of the ‘pooling of interest method’ the depreciation on goodwill is allowable. We shall gainfully rely on the said decision and the relevant extract of the same is as under:
“12. On merits, we have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below along with the judicial precedents relied on. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that FPIL is a wholly owned subsidiary of the asseesee. We find that as per the Scheme of Amalgamation approved by the Order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, the consideration paid by the assessee is much more than the net value of assets and liabilities taken over by the assessee. Such excess consideration paid by the assessee has been treated as goodwill and the assessee has claimed depreciation thereon at the applicable rate.
13. We find merit in the arguments of the ld.AR that as per the AY 2011-12 Audited Financials of the subsidiary FPIL (Formerly known as Transweigh (India) Limited), the assessee had paid a consideration of Rs.66,22,76,582/- to a third party during AY 2011-12 to acquire all the shares of FPIL. Pursuant to the acquisition, FPIL became a wholly owned subsidiary of the assessee. Subsequently, a few years down the line, the Assessee filed a Scheme of Amalgamation of FPIL with the assessee, and such Scheme was approved by an Order of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay on 27.06.2014. Pursuant to the said Order, with effect from 01.04.2013 (the Appointed Date), the assets and liabilities of FPIL were transferred to the assessee as per the Scheme of Amalgamation. The value of Net assets transferred from FPIL to the assessee amounted to Rs.20,64,25,682/- as disclosed in Note 43B of the Audited Financial Statements of AY 2014-15 of the assessee.
14. We are of the view that the consideration of Rs.66,22,76,582/- paid for investment in shares of FPIL over the Value of Net assets of Rs.20,64,25,682/-transferred from FPIL to the assessee, pursuant to the Order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, amounting to Rs.45,58,50,900/-, is in the nature of Goodwill and is eligible for tax depreciation on intangible assets.
15. Adverting to the finding of the AO that the goodwill cannot be self generated and that the claim of the assessee is on account of self-generated goodwill is not correct. The AO has relied upon Explanation 7 to section 43(1) and Explanation 2(b) to section 43(6) of the Act to hold that since goodwill was never recorded in the books, the assessee was not eligible for depreciation. But in the case before us, the goodwill on which depreciation is claimed by the assessee is arising out of the amalgamation scheme, and is not the self- generated goodwill as alleged by the AO. We find force in the submissions of the ld.AR that Explanation 7 to section 43(1) and Explanation 2(b) to Section 43(6) of the Act, does not affect the right of amalgamated company to claim depreciation, since the provisions of section 43 of the Act is applicable only where an existing block of asset is transferred from the amalgamating company to the amalgamated company. In the instant case, since goodwill comes into existence only for the first time subsequent amalgamation, the aforesaid Explanation do not apply. Explanation 7 to Section 43(1) and Explanation 2(b) to Section 43(6) of the Act do not affect the right of the amalgamated company to claim depreciation, as they would operate where an asset is acquired by amalgamating company, without incurring any financial outlay and such asset is transferred to amalgamated company without incurring any financial outlay. In the instant case, since excess consideration paid while initially acquiring the company prior to amalgamation and post amalgamation the net asset received is lesser than the purchase consideration, the differential consideration will constitute goodwill and as such aforesaid Explanation in provisions of section 43 of the Act are inapplicable. Our above decision is also supported by the Orders of the Tribunal relied upon by the assessee, in the following decisions:
| 1. |
|
KIFS International LLP v. DCIT ITA No. 557/AHD/2022 |
| 2. |
|
S&P Capital IQ (India) (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (Hyderabad – Trib.) |
| 3. |
|
I & B Seeds (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (Bangalore –Trib.) |
15. 1 Further, the Hyderabad Bench of the ITAT in the case of S&P Capital IQ (India) (P.) Ltd. (supra) and the Bangalore Bench of the ITAT in the case of I & B Seeds (P.) Ltd. (supra) held that by way of amendment through Finance Act, 2021 clause (b) of Section 2(11) of the Act was amended and the goodwill of the business or profession is excluded from the block of assets comprised in intangible assets. This amendment has come into force with effect from 01.04.2021 i.e. AY 2021-22. It follows that by way of this express provision, the Legislature excluded the goodwill of a business or profession from the block of intangible assets and till AY 2021-22, it shall be construed that goodwill was comprised in the block of intangible assets eligible for depreciation. Accordingly, the Hyderabad Tribunal and the Bangalore Tribunal in the said cases, held that goodwill is an intangible asset and is eligible for depreciation for the amalgamations/mergers prior to AY 2021-22.
16. Further, the Ld.DR also submitted that depreciation on goodwill is not allowable in cases of accounting done under pooling of interest method. In this context, we find that so far as accounting for amalgamation by way of pooling of interest method is concerned, the Pune Bench of the ITAT in the case of Cosmos Co-op Bank Ltd. (supra) held that amalgamation in question not by way of purchase but is an amalgamation by pooling of interest method, is no ground to deny the claim of the assessee. The relevant extract of the Pune Tribunal decision is reproduced below:
“The other objection of the CIT(A) to the effect that the amalgamation in question is not by way of purchase but is an amalgamation by merger, in our view, is no ground to deny the claim of the assessee, which is otherwise well-founded. Therefore, having regard to the aforesaid discussion, in our view, on facts and in law, the assessee is entitled for depreciation on the impugned sum for acquisition of business of commercial rights contemplated in section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Thus, on the Ground of Appeal No.3, assessee succeeds.”
17. Following the aforesaid decision and the judicial principles that an entry in the books of account does not determine taxability, we find force in the arguments of the ld. ld.AR that taxable income and income tax thereon must be computed according to the specific provisions of the Act, irrespective of the method of accounting used for financial statements. Accordingly, in our view, the amalgamation of FPIL with the assessee accounted by way of pooling of interest method, is no ground to deny a bona fide claim of the assessee and tax depreciation on goodwill arising on amalgamation is allowable. We are of the view that irrespective of the method of accounting i.e. pooling of interest method or purchase method is relevant only for the purpose of books/financials. However, as far as tax purposes is concerned, the guiding principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smifs Securities Ltd.
[2012] gains more relevance. For the sake of clarity and ready reference, the relevant paras are reproduced hereunder:
“Question No.[b]: “Whether goodwill is an asset within the meaning of Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and whether depreciation on ‘goodwill’ is allowable under the said Section?”
Answer: In the present case, the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs.54,85,430/- as depreciation on goodwill. In the course of hearing, the explanation regarding origin of such goodwill was given as under:
“In accordance with Scheme of Amalgamation of YSN Shares & Securities (P) Ltd with Smifs Securities Ltd (duly sanctioned by Hon’ble High Courts of Bombay and Calcutta) with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1998, assets and liabilities of YSN Shares & Securities (P) Ltd were transferred to and vest in the company. In the process goodwill has arisen in the books of the company.”
It was further explained that excess consideration paid by the assessee over the value of net assets acquired of YSN Shares and Securities Private Limited [Amalgamating Company] should be considered as goodwill arising on amalgamation. It was claimed that the extra consideration was paid towards the reputation which the Amalgamating Company was enjoying in order to retain its existing clientele. The Assessing Officer held that goodwill was not an asset falling under Explanation 3 to Section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘Act’, for short].
We quote hereinbelow Explanation 3 to Section 32(1) of the Act:
“Explanation 3.– For the purposes of this sub-section, the expressions ‘assets’ and ‘block of assets’ shall mean–[a] tangible assets, being buildings, machinery, plant or furniture; [b] intangible assets, being know- how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature.”
Explanation 3 states that the expression ‘asset’ shall mean an intangible asset, being know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature. A reading the words ‘any other business or commercial rights of similar nature’ in clause (b) of Explanation 3 indicates that goodwill would fall under the expression ‘any other business or commercial right of a similar nature’. The principle of ejusdem generis would strictly apply while interpreting the said expression which finds place in Explanation 3(b).
In the circumstances, we are of the view that ‘Goodwill’ is an asset under Explanation 3(b) to Section 32(1) of the Act.
One more aspect needs to be highlighted. In the present case, the Assessing Officer, as a matter of fact, came to the conclusion that no amount was actually paid on account of goodwill. This is a factual finding. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘CIT(A)’, for short] has come to the conclusion that the authorised representatives had filed copies of the Orders of the High Court ordering amalgamation of the above two Companies; that the assets and liabilities of M/s. YSN Shares and Securities Private Limited were transferred to the assessee for a consideration; that the difference between the cost of an asset and the amount paid constituted goodwill and that the assessee Company in the process of amalgamation had acquired a capital right in the form of goodwill because of which the market worth of the assessee-Company stood increased. This finding has also been upheld by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [‘ITAT’, for short].
We see no reason to interfere with the factual finding.
One more aspect which needs to be mentioned is that, against the decision of ITAT, the Revenue had preferred an appeal to the High Court in which it had raised only the question as to whether goodwill is an asset under Section 32 of the Act. In the circumstances, before the High Court, the Revenue did not file an appeal on the finding of fact referred to hereinabove. For the afore-stated reasons, we answer Question No.[b] also in favour of the assessee.” (emphasis supplied).
18. Thus, it is clear that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the circumstances and the process of amalgamation under which goodwill has arisen on which depreciation was claimed. Therefore, the judgement in the case of Smifs Securities Ltd. (supra) is applicable to the facts of the case before us and the excess payment over the net book value of assets and liabilities acquired on account of amalgamation is in the nature of ‘goodwill’ and is eligible for depreciation u/s.32(1)(ii) of the Act.”
9. This being so, the Ld.DR heavily relied on the Mumbai Tribunal decision in the case of Dosti Realty Ltd. (supra) wherein it is held as under:
“7. In the case of Smifs Securities Ltd., the Supreme Court has held that g/otodWiil’
1 is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under the provisions of section 32 of the IT Act. A decision is only an authority for what it actually decides. Hence, the said case can be said to be an authority only to the extent that goodwill is a depreciable asset. In the case of
U.P.State Industrial Development Corpn. [CIT v.
U.P. State Industrial Development Corpn. [1997] 225 ITR 703], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it is a well-accepted proposition that for the purposes of ascertaining profits and gains the ordinary principles of commercial accounting should be applied, so long as they do not conflict with any express provision of the relevant statute. The said principle was again retreated by the Supreme Court in the case of
Woodward Governor [CIT v.
Woodward Governor India (P.) Ltd. [2009] 312 ITR 254] wherein it held that profits for income-tax purpose are to be computed in accordance with ordinary principles of commercial accounting, unless such principles stand superseded or modified by legislative enactments. In other words, it can be said that accounting treatment of any transaction is relevant only to the extent they are not in conflict with the express provisions of the IT Act. In case of merger and acquisition, the IT Act expressly requires recording of capital assets at the price appearing in the books of Target Company. Accordingly, the recognition of goodwill in accordance with Accounting Standard-14 and amortisation of the same in accordance with Accounting Standard-26 may not be of any help in claiming depreciation under the IT Act in view of the express provisions mentioned therein. Thus, the cost of acquisition of existing goodwill in the hands of the acquirer will be the cost/written down value in the hands of Target Company. Further, in case of goodwill arising out of amalgamation, the cost in the hands of target company would be NIL by virtue of section 55(2)(
a)(
ii) and, accordingly, the cost would be NIL in the hands of acquirercompany. It is pertinent to note that decisions favouring the proposition [CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd.
[2012] 348 ITR 302(SC)] that depreciation is available on goodwill arising out of amalgamation, section, viz., 5th proviso to section 32(1), section 49(1)(
iii)(
e), Explanation 7 to section 43(1) and/or Explanation 2(
b) to section 43(6)(
c) and section 55(2)(
a)(
ii) were not referred.
8. Generally, when someone acquires a business and purchase consideration paid for the business is more than the net assets acquired, the difference is recognized as goodwill in accounting. Here in this case as amalgamation process has been carried out as per the direction of Hon’ble Bombay High Court and assessee clearly followed “pooling of interest” method, there can’t be any separate purchase consideration, which assessee is supposed to pay. In the whole scenario the principle of “substance over form” has to be considered. In substance there is no goodwill involved at all and it is simply an accounting entry to balance the accounts of the transferee company by virtue of scheme implementation as per the directions of Hon’ble High Court.
9. Goodwill falls in the category of “Intangible Assets”, but its advantages must be tangible and assessee has to establish on record that by virtue of “Goodwill” what are the financial and non-financial gains are accruing to him. In this case what we observed, pre-merger and post-merger is simply a consolidation of figures of entities involved and not a percentage growth in terms of sales, profitability, net worth and customer base etc. post-merger. In view of the above discussion and legal history analysed, we are of the considered view that order of Ld. CIT (A) is not sustainable in law and order of AO is restored as found to be based on sound legal logics.” (emphasis supplied)
10. Upon perusal of the aforesaid decision, we find that two principal reasons have been assigned for not following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. First, it has been observed that the Supreme Court’s ruling was confined to the allowability of depreciation on goodwill. Second, it has been noted that certain provisions of the Act were not specifically considered therein. In our considered opinion, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was rendered in the context of the allowability of depreciation on goodwill arising from amalgamation, and therefore, it cannot be contended that the issue itself was not adjudicated upon by the Court. Further, it is a settled principle that when the Hon’ble Supreme Court decides an issue, all relevant statutory provisions are presumed to have been taken into consideration. Consequently, the Tribunal ought not to have disregarded the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
11. Apart from the aforesaid reasoning, we have also independently examined whether the provisions referred to in the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal, namely the 5th proviso to section 32(1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), Explanation 7 to section 43(1), Explanation 2(b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii), have any bearing on the issue as to whether depreciation on goodwill arising pursuant to amalgamation is allowable under the Act.
12. On a careful consideration of the said provisions, we find that none of them expressly prohibit the claim of depreciation on goodwill recognised upon amalgamation. The 5th proviso to section 32(1) merely restricts the aggregate quantum of depreciation in cases of succession, amalgamation or demerger, without denying the character of goodwill as a depreciable asset. Similarly, section 49(1)(iii)(e), Explanation 7 to section 43(1) and Explanation 2(b) to section 43(6)(c) are provisions dealing with determination of actual cost and written down value in cases of transfer pursuant to amalgamation, and do not provide that goodwill arising on amalgamation would cease to qualify as an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii).
13. Likewise, section 55(2)(a)(ii), which provides that the cost of selfgenerated goodwill shall be taken as nil for the purpose of computation of capital gains, operates in an altogether different context and cannot be imported for determining eligibility of depreciation under section 32. In our considered view, the deeming fiction contained in section 55 is confined to computation of capital gains and cannot be extended beyond the purpose for which it has been enacted.
14. Therefore, we are unable to subscribe to the view expressed in the decision relied upon by the Ld. DR that the aforesaid statutory provisions dilute or override the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smifs Securities Ltd. Once goodwill has been recognised as an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii), and such goodwill has arisen pursuant to amalgamation, the claim of depreciation thereon cannot be denied in the absence of any specific statutory embargo.
15. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid provisions and provisos apply only to existing assets that are transferred and taken over in the course of amalgamation. None of these provisions specifically deal with the treatment of goodwill that comes into existence consequent to the amalgamation itself. Therefore, in our view, reference to the said provisions is wholly unnecessary for adjudicating the present controversy. In such circumstances, we deem it appropriate to follow the binding ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the issue. We further note that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of FLSmidth (P.) Ltd. (supra) had occasion to consider these very aspects and, upon detailed examination, held that depreciation on goodwill arising pursuant to amalgamation is allowable under the Act.
16. The Ld. DR, in the course of written submissions, has also sought to raise certain fresh factual contentions which neither formed part of the assessment order nor found mention in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). In our considered view, the Revenue cannot be permitted to improve or supplement its case at the stage of second appeal by raising altogether new allegations that were never put forth before the lower authorities. Be that as it may, the Ld. AR has furnished detailed submissions meeting all such additional contentions, and upon consideration thereof, we find the same to be cogent and satisfactory.
17. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the attempt of the Ld. DR to distinguish the decision in FLSmidth (P.) Ltd. (supra). Respectfully following the aforesaid binding and persuasive precedents, we hold that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on goodwill arising upon amalgamation. Consequently, the ground raised by the assessee for both the AY 2017-18 and 2018-19 stands allowed.
18. Coming to the next issue that the TPO has treated the outstanding receivables from AE as international transaction and attributed notional interest by adopting SBI PLR rate of 13.85% after allowing credit period of 30 days. Accordingly, the TPO has made adjustment by imputing interest of Rs.9,44,85,190/- and Rs.12,84,73,044/- for AY 2017-18 and 2018-19 respectively. Against this TP adjustment the Assessee had filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) and the ld.CIT(A) has partly allowed this issue by holding that interest should be attributed based on average 6 months and average LIBOR plus 300 BPS. Aggrieved against the same, the Assessee has filed this appeal before us.
19. The ld.AR submitted that the TPO proposed the upward adjustment towards notional interest on outstanding receivables on the basis that trade receivables due from the foreign AE have been delayed beyond the credit period allowed, for which appropriate compensation has not been received, thus concluding that the receivables have resulted in an interest free loan being provided by the assessee to the foreign AEs. The ld.AR submitted that no adjustment in respect of the interest on overdue receivables shall be warranted in case of a debt free company. Further, the ld.AR submitted that the assessee did not pay interest on payables to AE and thus same treatment has to be meted to receivables also. The ld.AR also contended that the assessee did not charge interest on receivables for both AE and Non-AE and therefore by directly applying internal CUP method, there is no requirement to impute interest on AE transactions alone.
20. The Ld.DR in this regard, contended that the assessee’s argument against imputing interest towards a debt free company is not tenable on the basis that, even though there is no finance cost incurred, there is an imputed interest cost that is foregone due to outstanding receivables pending collection and that the said argument can only be made in the case of domestic transactions and not in the case of international transactions.
21. We have heard the rival contentions perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities along with the paper book and the decided case laws relied on by the parties. The issue of TP adjustment on account of interest on overdue receivables from AE is covered in favour of the Assessee by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Newgen Digital works Pvt Ltd [IT(TP)A No.72/Chny/2024 dated 15.05.2025]. Therefore, respectfully following the same, we also hold that since the assessee is a debt free company and the assessee does not incur any significant interest cost and since the AE has not charged interest from Assessee in respect of payables, therefore TP adjustment of notional interest on overdue receivable is not warranted.
22. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, and in consonance with the judicial precedents of this Tribunal, we are of the considered view that the transfer pricing adjustment on account of notional interest pertaining to overdue receivables is unwarranted. This ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed.
23. The Ld.AR has not pressed the grounds of appeal on limitation under section 153 and therefore the same is dismissed.
24. The Ld.AR also submitted that other grounds of appeal raised are consequential and therefore separate adjudication is not required. Accordingly, other grounds of appeal in relation to initiation of penalty u/s.270A, levy of interest u/s.234B and C are not adjudicated. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal relating to these issues in both the appeals are dismissed.
25. In the result both the appeals of the assessee for AY 2017-18 and 201819 are partly allowed.
