NOBEL BIOCARE INDIA PVT. LTD., MUMBAI v. DCIT 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 864/MUM/2016 | 2011-2012
Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2016 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 86419914 RSA 2016
Assessee PAN AACCN0274A
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 864/MUM/2016
Duration Of Justice 7 month(s) 5 day(s)
Appellant NOBEL BIOCARE INDIA PVT. LTD., MUMBAI
Respondent DCIT 15(2)(1), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-09-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted Not Allotted
Tribunal Order Date 28-09-2016
Assessment Year 2011-2012
Appeal Filed On 22-02-2016
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH K MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AN D SHRI SANJAY GARG JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.864/M/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 M/S. NOBEL BIOCARE INDIA PVT. LTD. UNIT NO.702 7 TH FLOOR A WING HONBLE SUPREME COURT BUSINESS PARK BEHIND LAKE CASTLE HIRANANDANI GARDEN POWAI MUMBAI 400 076 PAN: AACCN0274A VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 15(2)(1) ROOM NO.403 4 TH FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI - 400020 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PRESENT FOR: ASSESSEE BY : SHRI DHANESH BAFNA A.R MS. CHANDNI SHAH A.R. REVENUE BY : SHRI N.K. CHAND D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 25.05.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.09.2016 O R D E R PER SANJAY GARG JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSES SEE AGAINST THE DIRECTIONS PASSED BY THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL-2 (DRP) MUMBAI DATED 14.12.15 ON THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AG AINST THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 13.03.15 OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER (HERE INAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE AO) RELATING TO THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENTS. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ON BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER DATED JANUARY 30 2016 OF THE LEARNED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 15(2)(1) MUMBAI (THE AO ') PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 144C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 ('THE ACT') AS ALSO DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL - II MUMBAI ('DRP') PRESENT APPEAL IS BEING PREFERRED ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS AMONGST OTHERS WHICH IT IS PRAYED MAY BE CONSIDERED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ONE ANOTHER. ITA NO.864/M/2016 M/S. NOBEL BIOCARE INDIA PVT. LTD. 2 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW THE LEARNED AOIDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TRANSFER PRICING OFFICE R - 3(1)(1) ('THE TPO') ERRED IN DETERMINING THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE IN RELATION T O THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION OF IMPORT OF DENTAL PRODUCTS AT RS.16 20 00 319 INS TEAD OF RS.17 05 58 470 AS DETERMINED BY THE APPELLANT THEREBY COMPUTING A TR ANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT OF RS.85 58 151/-. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE LEARNED AO I TPO BE DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION OF THE APPELLANT AT ARM'S LENGTH AND ACCORDINGLY THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT OF RS.85 58 151/- SHOUL D BE DELETED. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW THE LEARNED AO ERRED IN DISALLOWING PROVISION FOR OBSOLETE AND NON MOVIN G INVENTORY OF RS. 94 47 108. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE LEARNED AO BE DIRECTED TO DEL ETE THE DISALLOWANCE FOR PROVISION FOR OBSOLETE AND NON MOVING INVENTORY OF RS.94 47 108. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE LEARNED AO ERRED IN DISALLOWING PROVISION FOR SALES RETURN OF RS.30 00 000. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE LEARNED AO BE DIRECTED TO DEL ETE THE DISALLOWANCE FOR PROVISION FOR SALES RETURN OF RS. 30 00 000. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE LEARNED AO ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2 00 000 ON ACCOUNT O F SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE LEARNED AO BE DIRECTED TO DEL ETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2 00 000. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED AO HAS ERRED IN CHARGING EXCESS INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B OF THE ACT. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE LEARNED AO BE DIRECTED TO RE- COMPUTE THE ABOVE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B OF THE ACT. 6. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED AO HAS ERRED IN PROPOSING TO INITIATE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)( C) OF THE ACT FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE LEARNED AO BE DIRECTED NOT TO INITIATE THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE INDEPENDENT OF AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF ONE ANOTHER. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD ALTER AMEND OR WITHDR AW ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL HEREIN AND TO SUBMIT SUCH STATEMENTS DOC UMENTS AND PAPERS AS MAY BE CONSIDERED NECESSARY EITHER AT OR BEFORE THE APP EAL HEARING. ITA NO.864/M/2016 M/S. NOBEL BIOCARE INDIA PVT. LTD. 3 GROUND NO.1: 3. GROUND NO.1 IS RELATING TO THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENTS IN DETERMINING THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE IN RELATION TO TH E INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WITH ITS RELATED/HOLDING COMPA NY. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF NOBEL BIO-C ARE ASIA-AFRICA HOLDING AG (IN SHORT NBH) FOR UNDERTAKING WHOLESALE TRADING OF NBH DENTAL PRODUCTS/SOLUTIONS IN INDIA AND FOR PROVIDING THE R EQUISITE MARKETING PRESALE/AFTER SALE SUPPORT AND TRAINING TO CUSTOMER S IN INDIA. THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO A DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITH ITS AES FOR PURCHASE OF DENTAL PRODUCTS AND RESALE IN INDIA. AS PER THE DISTRIBUT ION AGREEMENT THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE REMUNERATED AT AN ARMS LENGTH OPERATING MARG IN (4% ON SALES AS DETERMINED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION). IN T HE EVENT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT EARN A MARGIN OF 4% ON SALES THE AE WOULD COMPE NSATE THE SHORTFALL TO MAINTAIN THE ARMS LENGTH OPERATING MARGIN. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAS FOLLOWING AGGREGAT ED INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO WITH ITS AES FOR THE PUR POSE OF DETERMINING THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE. 1. IMPORT OF DENTAL PRODUCTS/SOLUTIONS 17 05 58 470/- 2. ASSISTANCE RECEIVED FROM THE AE TO MAINTAIN 7 39 58 564/- AN ARMS LENGTH MARGIN THE ONLY CONTENTION RAISED BEFORE US BY THE ASSESS EE IN RELATION TO GROUND NO.1 IS AGAINST THE INCLUSION OF ONE COMPARA BLE I.E. 3M INDIA LTD.. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN THAT THIS C OMPARABLE SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE COMPARABILITY ANALYSIS TO DETERMI NE THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE AS THIS COMPANY 3M INDIA LTD. HAS RELATED PARTY T RANSACTIONS (RPT) OF 38.63%. IT HAS BEEN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AS HELD IN VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE COMPANIES HAVING RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS MORE THAN 15% SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN/INCLUDED FOR COMP ARATIVE ANALYSIS FOR ITA NO.864/M/2016 M/S. NOBEL BIOCARE INDIA PVT. LTD. 4 DETERMINING THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE. HE IN THIS RE SPECT HAS RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: 1. VODAFONE INDIA SERVICES PVT. LTD. (ITA NO.7140/MUM/ 2012 AND ITA NO.7097/MUM/2012) 2. WILLIS PROCESSING SERVICES (I) P. LTD. (ITA NOS.454 7 & 4429/MUM/2012) 4. THE LD. DRP HAS REJECTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVING THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAD INCLUDED THE ABOVE CO MPANY 3M INDIA LTD. IN ITS TRANSFER PRICING STUDY REPORT HENCE THE ASSESSEE W AS THEN ESTOPPED FROM AGITATING THAT THIS COMPANY SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED. THE DRP FURTHER OBSERVED THAT EVEN IN THE OWN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THE RELAT ED PARTY TRANSACTION HAS BEEN MUCH HIGHER. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS T HUS REJECTED. 5. BEFORE US THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE HAS PLA CED RELIANCE ON THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. QUARK SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. 132 TTJ 1 (CHD. TRIBUNAL SPECIAL BENCH) DECIS ION DATED 22.10.09. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SAID DECISION. IN THE SAID C ASE ALSO IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SINCE ONE OF THE COMPARABLE SU GGESTED BY IT HAD SHOWN EXTRAORDINARY PROFITS HENCE IT SHOULD BE REJECTED/ EXCLUDED. THE TRIBUNAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE RELEVANT SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PA RTIES OBSERVED THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAD SELECTED THAT COMPA RABLE IT WOULD NOT BE AN ESTOPPLE TO THE ASSESSEE FROM POINTING OUT A MISTAK E IN THE ASSESSMENT THOUGH SUCH MISTAKE IS THE RESULT OF EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY T HE ASSESSEE. THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER OBSERVED THAT WHEN SU BSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS ARE PITTED AGAINST EACH OT HER THE CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DESERVES TO BE PREFERRED. FOR THE OTHER SI DE CANNOT CLAIM TO HAVE A VESTED RIGHT IN INJUSTICE BEING DONE DUE TO SOME MI STAKE ON ITS PART. 6. FURTHER IN THE CASE OF BT LTD. VS. DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) (2014) 151 ITD ITD 0072 (D EL) WHEREIN IN SOMEWHAT IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES ON THE LIMITED ISSUE OF IN CLUSION OF A COMPARABLE DUE ITA NO.864/M/2016 M/S. NOBEL BIOCARE INDIA PVT. LTD. 5 TO A VERY HIGH PERCENTAGE OF SIGNIFICANT RELATED PA RTY TRANSACTION OF ABOUT 36% THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE COMPARABLE COMPANY HAS T O BE EXCLUDED FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES WHERE COMPARABLE THOUGH OFFERED BY T HE ASSESSEE AS A FUNCTIONAL COMPARABLE BECOMES A TAINTED COMPARABLE DUE TO A VERY HIGH PERCENTAGE OF SIGNIFICANT RELATED PARTY TRANSACTION . THE TRIBUNAL HAD ALSO TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE CASE LAWS NAMELY IN THE CASE OF SONI INDIA PVT. LTD. 114 ITD 448; ADP PVT. LTD. 45 SOT 172 HYDERABAD; GLOBAL LOGIC INDIA P. LTD. (2011) 46 SOT 285 AND OBSERVED THAT IN THE SA ID CASES 15% AND 25% RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS RESPECTIVELY WERE HELD T O BE ACCEPTABLE WHICH POSITION HAS BEEN AFFIRMED IN THE ORDER OF THE CO-O RDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF HAPEG LLOYD GLOBAL SERVICE S WHEREIN ALSO RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS TO THE EXTENT OF 25% HAS BEEN HE LD AS COMPARABLE BY NECESSARY IMPLICATION AND THE RELATED PARTY TRANSAC TION BEYOND THIS THRESHOLD HAS TO BE EXCLUDED. IN VIEW OF THIS SINCE THE ASS ESSEE HAS STATED THAT THE RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS IN THE CASE OF 3M INDIA LTD. ARE OF 38.63% WE THEREFORE DIRECT THE AO TO VERIFY THIS ASPECT AND I F THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND CORRECT THEN TO EXCLUDE THE COMP ANY 3M INDIA LTD. FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. THIS ISSUE IS ACCORDINGLY TREATED AS ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NOS.2 & 3 7. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES HAVE SUBM ITTED THAT THE ISSUES RAISED VIDE GROUND NOS.2 & 3 ARE SQUARELY COVERED B Y THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE OWN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2 009-10 VIDE ORDER DATED 03.11.14 PASSED IN ITA NO.1008/M/2014 AND THAT THE ISSUES HAD BEEN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR EXAMINATION OF FACTS IN T HE LIGHT OF THE PROPOSITIONS LAID DOWN/DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL. BOTH T HE LD. REPRESENTATIVES HAVE THEREFORE REQUESTED THAT THESE ISSUES BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH SIMILAR DIRECTIONS. WE ACCORDINGLY DIRECT THE AO TO EXAMINE THE ISSUES RAISED VIDE GROUND NOS.2 & 3 AS REPRODUCED ABOVE IN THE LI GHT OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE ITA NO.864/M/2016 M/S. NOBEL BIOCARE INDIA PVT. LTD. 6 TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 03.11.14 IN THE OWN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2009-10 AND DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. GROUND NO.4 8. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THIS GROUND IS REGARDING THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHORT DEDUCTED THE TDS ON THE PAYMENT MADE TO THE CONTRAC TORS. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX AT THE RATE OF 2% AND TAX DE DUCTABLE WAS RS.4000/- WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD DEDUCTED TAX OF ON LY RS.2000/-. THE AO THEREFORE DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE PAYMENT OF RS.2 LA KHS MADE TO THE CONTRACTORS AND ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. BEFORE US THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED U PON THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 19.02.16 IN ITA NO.746/M/2014 IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. HINDUSTAN THOMPSON ASSOCIATES LTD. WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED THE CONTRARY DECISIONS OF T HE TWO DIFFERENT NON JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS. IT HAS BEEN NOTED THAT THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PVS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL REPORT ED IN 60 TAXMANN.COM 69 HAS HELD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE IS ATTRACTED IN CASE OF SHORT DEDUCTION OF TDS WHEREAS THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SK TEKRIWAL 260 CTR 73 HAS HELD THAT NO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES IS ATTRACTED UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX. TH E HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS NOT DECIDED THE ISSUE. THE TRIBUNAL RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AS HOK KUMAR PAREKH 186 ITR 212 HAS HELD THAT WHERE TWO CONTRARY DECISIONS OF NON JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS ARE AVAILABLE THEN THE TRIBUNAL MUST TAKE T HE VIEW WHICH IS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL AS GIVEN IN PARA 5 OF THE ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 5.WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED T HE MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF P V S MEMORIAL HOSPITAL(SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT DEDUCTION OF TDS UNDE R WRONG PROVISION OF LAW WILL NOT SAVE ASSESSEE FROM DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40(A)(IA)O F THE ACT.HOWEVER THE KOLKATA ITA NO.864/M/2016 M/S. NOBEL BIOCARE INDIA PVT. LTD. 7 HIGH COURT IN THE MATTER OF SAMIR TEKRIWAL(SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT EXPENSES ARE NOT LIABLE TO BE DISALLOWED U/S.40(A)(IA)ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX.THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS NOT DECIDED T HE ISSUE.THUS WE ARE FACED WITH TWO DIAGONALLY OPPOSITE VIEWS ABOUT APPLICABILITY O F THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40 (A)(IA)OF THE ACT.WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE BOMBAY H IGH COURT HAS IN THE CASE OF ASHOK KUMAR PAREKH(186 IT R212)HAS DEALT WITH THE B INDING PRECEDENCE OF THE HIGH COURT JUDGMENTS.HERE WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO REPRODUC E THE A PORTION OF THE JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SIEMENS INDIA LTD.(156ITR11) AND SAME READS AS UNDER : SO FAR AS THE LEGAL POSITION IS CONCERNED THE IT O WOULD BE BOUND BY A DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT AS ALSO BY A DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT OF THE STATE WITHIN WHOSE JURISDICTION HE IS (FUNCTIONING) IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PENDENCY OF ANY APPEAL OR SPECIAL LEAVE APPLICATION AGAINST THAT JUDGMENT. HE WOULD EQUALLY BE BOUND BY A DECISION OF ANOTHER HIGH COURT ON THE POINT BECAUSE NOT TO FOLLOW THAT DECISION WOULD BE TO CAUSE GRAVE PREJUDICE TO THE ASSESSEE. WHERE THERE IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN DIFFERENT HIGH COURTS HE MUST FOLLOW THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT WITHIN W HOSE JURISDICTION HE IS (FUNCTIONING) BUT IF THE CONFLICT IS BETWEEN DECIS IONS OF OTHER HIGH COURTS HE MUST TAKE THE VIEW WHICH IS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASS ESSEE AND NOT AGAINST HIM. SIMILARLY IF THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED A POINT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE HE CANNOT IGNORE THAT DECISION AND TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW BECAUSE THAT WOULD EQUALLY PREJUDICE THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE WE ARE TAKING THE VIEW WHICH IS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE.WE ARE FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF SAMIR TEKRIWAL (SUPRA )OF THE HONBLE KOLKATA HIGH COURT AS WELL AS THE ORDERS OF THE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL DELIVERED BY IT FOR THE EARLIER YEARS. EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DECIDE AGAINST THE AO. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE TR IBUNAL THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN VIEW OF OUR OBSERVATIONS MADE ABOVE THE APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.09.2016. SD/- SD/- (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI DATED: 28.09.2016. * KISHORE SR. P.S. COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT CONCERNED MUMBAI ITA NO.864/M/2016 M/S. NOBEL BIOCARE INDIA PVT. LTD. 8 THE CIT (A) CONCERNED MUMBAI THE DR CONCERNED BENCH //TRUE COPY// [ BY ORD ER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI.