The Computer Science Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Indore V. M/s. ACIT Circle 2(1), Indore

CO 50/IND/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3252 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 03-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 02-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJEEV VARSHNEY
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Earning of tax free income
• Section: 14A; 115JB

Judgement Text

TPA 88, CO50 AND TPA 38 OF 2013 COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TPA NO. 88/IND/2013 A.Y. 2007-08 ACIT-2(1), INDORE :: APPELLANT VS M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION INDIA P. LTD., INDORE PAN AABCC 5820 A :: RESPONDENT CROSS-OBJECTION NO.50/IND/2013 ARISING OUT OF TPA NO. 88/IND/2013 A.Y. 2007-08 M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION INDIA P. LTD., INDORE PAN AABCC 5820 A :: APPELLANT VS ACIT-2(1), INDORE :: RESPONDENT TPA NO. 38/IND/2013 A.Y. 2008-09 M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION INDIA P. LTD., INDORE PAN AABCC 5820 A :: APPELLANT VS ACIT-2(1), INDORE :: RESPONDENT TPA 88, CO50 AND TPA 38 OF 2013 COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION 2 DEPARTMENT BY SHRI RAJEEV VARSHNEY RESPONDENT BY SHRI RAVI SHARMA DATE OF HEARING 03.5.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 03.5.2016 O R D E R PER SHRI B.C. MEENA, AM THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CO FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)- I, INDORE, DATED 30.11.2012, WHEREAS THE APPEAL FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.11.2012 PASSED CONSEQUENT UPON DIRECTIONS DATED 07.9.12 OF DRP AND TRANSFER PRICING ORDER U/S 92CA(3) DATED 28.10.2011 OF TPO-1, AHMEDABAD. (A.Y. 2007-08) 2. GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS WITH REGARD TO DEDUCTION U/S 10A IN RESPECT OF INDORE UNIT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD EARLIER CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80HHE OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER DISALLOWED CLAIM U/S 10A IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SEC. (5) O F SECTION 80HHE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE WORD SU CH PROFITS IN SUB- SECTION (5) REFERS TO THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS I.E. EX PORT OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE & PROVIDING TECHNICAL SERVICES OUTSIDE INDIA IN CON NECTION WITH DEVELOPMENT OR PRODUCTION OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE AS M ENTIONED IN SUB- TPA 88, CO50 AND TPA 38 OF 2013 COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION 3 SECTION (1) AND THEREBY WOULD MEAN THAT ASSESSEE CO . WOULD BE DEBARRED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION, IN RESPECT OF PROFITS OF SUCH EXISTING BUSINESS OF EXPORT OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE, UNDER ANY OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT FOR THE SAME OR ANY OTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR. SINCE THEN CONSISTENTLY THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 10A IN RESPECT OF THE EXPORT PROFIT HAS BEEN DENIED YEAR AFTER YEAR. THE DISALLOWANCE HAS B EEN LIMITED TO THE PROFIT OF INDORE UNIT. THIS IS THE LAST YEAR I.E. 1 0 TH YEAR OF CLAIM. THE LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE. AG GRIEVED WITH THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. BEFORE US, THE LD. SENIOR D.R. RELIED ON THE ORD ER OF THE AO WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS, RELYING ON THE ORDER OF T HE LD. CIT(A), REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) A ND SUBMITTED THAT ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE REVENUE BY THE ORDER O F ITAT, INDORE. 4. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS COVE RED AGAINST THE REVENUE BY THE ORDER DATED 22.2.2007 (ITA NO.440/IN D/2007 AND OTHERS-COPY FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK) WHEREIN ON THE SIMILAR SET OF FACTS IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE, ITAT, INDORE HAS ALLOWED D EDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT. LD. DR COULD NOT BRING ANY CONTRARY MATERI AL OR DECISION IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUND. WE, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING ABO VE ORDER OF THIS TPA 88, CO50 AND TPA 38 OF 2013 COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION 4 TRIBUNAL, CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). THUS , THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL ON THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 5. THROUGH SECOND GROUND IN DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL, TH E REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED RESTRICTION OF THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D TO THE EXTENT OF RS.8 LACS, WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS, THROUGH CROSS- OBJECTION, CHALLENGED THE CONFIRMATION OF RS.8 LACS . FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD SHOWN DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.1,20,99,986/- FROM CERTAIN IN VESTMENT AND CLAIMED IT EXEMPT U/S 10(35) OF THE ACT. SINCE THE EXEMPT INCOME IS SHOWN, A COMPUTATION IS TO BE MADE AS PER RULE 8D F OR DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT. EXPENDITURE IS DETERMINED FOR TWO U NDERTAKINGS OF NOIDA IN PROPORTION TO EXEMPT INCOME AS PER RULE 8D(2)(II I) AMOUNTING TO RS.15,71,466/-. LD. CIT(A), CONSIDERING THE DISALLO WANCE ON HIGHER SIDE, RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.8 L ACS. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE REVENUE AND ASSESSEE BOTH ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. BEFORE US, THE LD. SENIOR D.R. RELIED ON THE ORD ER OF THE AO WHEREAS THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED THAT RULE 8D IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT YEAR. DISALLOWANCE U/ S 14A REQUIRES FACTUAL FINDING BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF INCURRENCE OF E XPENSES IN RELATION TO EARNING EXEMPT INCOME. PURCHASE OF MUTUAL FUNDS BY THE ASSESSEE TPA 88, CO50 AND TPA 38 OF 2013 COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION 5 WHICH RESULTED INTO EARNING OF DIVIDEND INCOME WAS FUNDED THROUGH OWN FUNDS/INTERNAL ACCRUALS AND ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE ANY BORROWINGS AS AT 31.3.2007. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE FILE. WE FIND THAT RULE 8D IS APPLICABLE FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, THEREFORE, IN THE PRESENT YEAR I.E. 2007-08, RULE 8D WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE. CONDI TIONS OF SECTION 14A(1) WERE NOT SATISFIED AS DISALLOWANCE U/S 14(1) IS CAL LED FOR ONLY IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITURE ACTUALLY INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE DI RECTLY AND FOR THE OBJECT OF/IN RELATION TO OR IN CONNECTION WITH EARN ING EXEMPT INCOME. THEREFORE, TO MAKE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER WAS REQUIRED TO RECORD FACTUAL FINDING OF INCURRENCE OF EXPENSES IN RELATION TO EARNING EXEMPT INCOME, WHICH COULD NOT BE DONE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER. FURTHER, MUTUAL FUNDS WERE PURCHASED BY TH E ASSESSEE THROUGH OWN FUNDS/INTERNAL ACCRUALS AND ASSESSEE DOES NOT H AVE ANY BORROWINGS AS AT 31.3.2007. THE RATIO TAKEN IN THE CASES OF GO DREJ BOYCE MFG. CO., 328 ITR 81 (BOM); WALFORT SHARE & STOCK BROKERS P. LTD. (2010) 326 ITR 1 (SC); RELIANCE UTILITIES & POWER LTD. (2009) 313 ITR 340 ETC. FURTHER SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ABOV E FACTS COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE US BY BRINGING A NY COGENT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE FACTS IN VIEW OF THE JUDICIAL TPA 88, CO50 AND TPA 38 OF 2013 COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION 6 PRONOUNCEMENTS (SUPRA), WE ALLOW THIS ISSUE IN FAVO UR OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL ON THIS ISSUE IS D ISMISSED WHEREAS CROSS-OBJECTION ON THIS ISSUE IS ALLOWED. 8. IN CROSS-OBJECTION, THE NEXT EFFECTIVE ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO CONFIRMATION OF EXCLUSION OF 25% OF FOREIGN TRAVEL AND OTHER EXPENSES ON AD HOC BASIS WHILE COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF T HE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT CONSIDERING THE HUGE A MOUNT OF EXPORT TURNOVER, IT WOULD BE UNLIKELY THAT NO EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FOREIGN CURRENCY OUTSIDE INDIA. ACCORDI NGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT IN ABSENCE OF DETAILS, IT WOULD B E QUITE REASONABLE IF 25% OF TRAVEL EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.31,13,87,406 /- SHOULD BE EXCLUDED WHILE COMPUTING EXPORT TURNOVER AS PER EXP LANATION 2(IV) OF SECTION 10A OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE A CTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, DIRECTED THE AMOUNT TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE TOTAL TURNOVER AS WELL. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS BE FORE US. 9. BEFORE US, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE O RDER OF ITAT, INDORE WHEREAS, LD. DR HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE REVE NUE AUTHORITIES. 10. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS COVE RED AGAINST THE REVENUE BY THE ORDER DATED 22.2.2007 (ITA NO.440/IN D/2007 AND TPA 88, CO50 AND TPA 38 OF 2013 COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION 7 OTHERS-COPY FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK) WHEREIN ON THE SIMILAR SET OF FACTS IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE, ITAT, INDORE HAS DELETED T HE ADDITION. EVEN, LD. DR COULD NOT BRING ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL OR DEC ISION IN SUPPORT OF THE REVENUE. WE, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING ABOVE ORDER OF TH IS TRIBUNAL, DELETE THE ADDITION. THUS, CROSS-OBJECTION ON THIS ISSUE I S ALLOWED. 11. THE NEXT EFFECTIVE ISSUE IN THE CROSS-OBJECTION IS WITH REGARD TO CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.3,11,42,922/- ON ACC OUNT OF ADJUSTMENT FOR DIFFERENCE IN ARMS LENGTH PRICE ON ACCOUNT OF PAYM ENT OF PORTAL CHARGES, HRIS SOFTWARE, GDRM TOOLS AND SOX RECHARGES. FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE M ADE CERTAIN PAYMENTS TO CSC, USA FOR COST ALLOCATION ARRANGEMEN T ON ACCOUNT OF CSC PORTAL, HRIS GLOBAL, GDRM AND SOX. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT IT WAS NOT ECONOMICAL TO SOURCE THESE SERVICES LOCALLY AND THESE COST ALLOCATIONS ARE NOT IN THE NATURE OF SHAREHOLDER AC TIVITIES. SOX IS A SOFTWARE REQUIRED FOR US REPORTING IN VIEW OF US RE GULATIONS WHICH IS NOT REQUIRED FOR ASSESSEE, AN INDIAN ENTITY. ACCORDINGL Y, THE COST FOR THE SAME I.E. 8,78,615/- WAS TAKEN AS NIL. SIMILARLY, C SC PORTAL, HRIS GLOBAL, GDRM SOFTWARE FOR THE BENEFIT OF GROUP ENTITIES, 50 % OF THE EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF CSC PORTAL, HRIS GLOBAL AND GDRM SOFT WARE WAS TREATED AS NOT REQUIRED FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AN D WAS DISALLOWED TPA 88, CO50 AND TPA 38 OF 2013 COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION 8 ACCORDINGLY. LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER. THUS, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. 12. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AD HOC DISALLOWANCE WITHOUT BRINGING ANY COMPARABLE COMPANY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT R ESORT TO ANY METHOD AND DID NOT UNDERTAKE ANY EXERCISE FOR COMPU TATION OF ARMS LENGTH PRICE. ASSESSEE OPERATES ON A COST PLUS BASI S AND ALL THESE COSTS ALLOCATED ARE CHARGED BACK TO AES WITH APPROPRIATE MARK UP. FURTHER, DRP HAS ALLOWED THE SIMILAR GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAME COUNT IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 & 2010-11 AND THE REVEN UE IS NOT IN APPEALS AGAINST THE DECISION OF DRP IN THIS ISSUE. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 13. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOT H THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE FILE. WE FIND THAT THE PRESENT ISSUE HAS, ON THE SIMILAR SET OF FACTS, BEEN ALLOWE D BY THE DRP FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 & 2010-11 IN THE ASSESSEE S OWN CASE. LD. DR COULD NEITHER BRING ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL NOR CO NTROVERT THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT REVENUE IS NOT IN A PPEALS ON THIS ISSUE IN THE YEARS 2009-10 & 2010-11. THEREFORE, WE SET A SIDE THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, CROSS-OBJECTION ON THIS ISSUE IS ALLOWED. TPA 88, CO50 AND TPA 38 OF 2013 COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION 9 14. THE LAST EFFECTIVE GROUND OF CROSS-OBJECTION IS WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION MADE TO THE NET PROFIT WHILE COMPUTING BO OK PROFIT U/S 115JB OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTME NT MADE BY THE TPO IS BAD IN LAW. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS ADDITION TOO WAS DELETED BY THE DRP IN AS SESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. LD. DR COULD NOT CONTROVER T THE ASSERTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE , SINCE THE DRP HAS ALLOWED THE SIMILAR ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSE SSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, WE DELETE THIS ADDITION. A.Y. 2008-09 15. THE FIRST EFFECTIVE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS.1,93,00,642/- ON ACCOUNT OF ON ACCOU NT OF ADJUSTMENT FOR DIFFERENCE IN ARMS LENGTH PRICE ON ACCOUNT OF PAYM ENT OF PORTAL CHARGES, HRIS SOFTWARE, GDRM TOOLS AND SOX RECHARGES. BOTH T HE PARTIES SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS SIMILAR TO THAT OF ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 16. WE FIND THAT THE ABOVE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVO UR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DISCUSSION ON THE SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN MADE F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 IN PARAS 11 TO 13 OF THIS ORDER. BY FO LLOWING THE SAME, WE ALLOW THIS GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. TPA 88, CO50 AND TPA 38 OF 2013 COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION 10 17. THE NEXT EFFECTIVE GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE AT RS.27,87,208/- OUT OF INT EREST EXPENSES U/S 14A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VI EW THAT THE AMOUNT IS TO BE ATTRIBUTABLE TOWARDS EARNING THE EXEMPT DIVID END INCOME. THE DRP UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. LEA RNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER WITHOUT GIVING ANY FINDING ON THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 14A(1) DIRECTLY COMPUTED THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 14A ARE NOT APPLICABLE AS THE SECTION CLEARLY STATES THAT A DED UCTION SHALL ONLY BE ALLOWED FOR ANY EXPENDITURE INCURRED ONLY IN RELAT ION TO EARNING ANY EXEMPT INCOME. THE PHRASE IN RELATION TO HAS NOT BEEN DEFINED IN THE ACT. VARIOUS COURTS HAVE HELD THAT THE TERM WOULD M EAN DIRECT AND PROXIMATE. SINCE THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 14A ITSEL F DOES NOT PERMIT ANY APPORTIONMENT, NOTHING ELSE SHOULD BE PRESUMED OR I MPLIED FROM IT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE FOLL OWING DECISIONS: 1. DCIT VS. COSMOS INTERNATIONAL LTD (ITA NO.772/DE L/2013, ORDER DATED 28.8.2014); 2. VIVEK JAIN VS. ACIT (ITA NO.1038/DEL/2012, ORDER DATED 14.9.2012); AND 3. SESA GOA LTD. VS. JCIT, [2013] 38 TAXMANN.COM 34 (PANAJI-TRIB), ORDER DATED 08.3.2013. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF R EVENUE AUTHORITIES. TPA 88, CO50 AND TPA 38 OF 2013 COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION 11 18. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOT H THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE FILE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A PAPER BOOK, WHEREIN, THE RELEV ANT DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN ANNEXED. ASSESSEE HAS AGITATED THAT THE DOCUME NTS AND JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN APPRECIATED BY THE REV ENUE AUTHORITIES IN THE PROPER PERSPECTIVE. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO MADE SUBMISSION ALONG WITH JUDICI AL PRONOUNCEMENTS. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND SUBMISSIONS THEREOF, AS NARRATED ABOVE, T HE MATTER REQUIRES RECONSIDERATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE AO. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON THIS ISSUE. TH E ISSUE IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. AO WITH DIRECTION TO VE RIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND JUDICI AL PRONOUNCEMENTS. THE AO SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUE AFTER GIVING DUE OPPO RTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO F ILE ANY FURTHER EVIDENCE, IF ANY, IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. THUS, T HE ISSUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 19. THE LAST EFFECTIVE GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION MADE TO THE NET PROFIT. WE FIND THAT THE SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY US IN PARA 14 OF THIS ORDER WHE REIN WE HAVE ALLOWED THE GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE. TPA 88, CO50 AND TPA 38 OF 2013 COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION 12 THEREFORE, BY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE ALLOW THIS GRO UND OF THE APPEAL IN THE PRESENT YEAR TOO. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03.5.201 6. SD/- ( D.T. GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (B.C. MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : .5.2016 !VYAS! COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR, INDORE