Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, V. INA Bearings India Private Limited, Pune

ITA 100/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2830 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 07-06-2019
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 13-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SHIVRAJ B MOREY
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Rectification of order; International transaction; Wholly owned subsidiary; Reassessment proceedings; Set aside
• Section: 92C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH C, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER . / ITA NO.43/PUN/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 INA BEARINGS INDIA PVT. LTD., PLOT NO.A3, TALEGAON INDUSTRIAL AREA, NAVALKH UMBRE, TAL. MAVAL TALEGAON, PUNE 410507 PAN : AAACI7163H VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) . / ITA NO.100/PUN/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 ACIT, CIRCLE-11, PUNE VS. INA BEARINGS INDIA PVT. LTD., PLOT NO.A3, TALEGAON INDUSTRIAL AND FLORICULTURE AREA, VILLAGE AMBI, NAVLAKHA UMBRE, TAL. MAVAL, TALEGAON DABHADE PUNE 410507 PAN : AAACI7163H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI MILIN MEHTA RESPONDENT BY SHRI SHIVRAJ B. MOREY DATE OF HEARING 07-06-2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07-06-2019 ITA NOS.43 & 100/PUN/2017 INA BEARINGS INDIA PVT. LTD. 2 / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : THESE TWO APPEALS ONE BY THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER B Y THE REVENUE - ARISE OUT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-1 3, PUNE ON 10-10-2016 IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL IS A GAINST THE COMPUTATION OF ARMS LENGTH PRICE (ALP) OF THE MANUFACTURING AS WELL AS TRADING SEGMENT BY EXCLUDING FOREIGN EXCHANGE GAIN/LOSS (FOREX). 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS ONE OF THE COMPANIES OF INA BRAND OF SCHAEFFLER GROUP WORLD WIDE. IT IS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF SCHAEFFLER KG, GERMANY. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING, DEVELOPMENT, MARKETING AND DISTRIBUTION OF ROLLER BEARING, LINEAR BEARINGS SYSTEM AND ENGINE COMPONENTS. THE ASSESSEE FILE D ITS RETURN DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. NIL. CERTAIN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES (AES) WERE REPORTED IN FORM NO. 3CEB. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) REFERRED THE MATTER OF DETERMINATION OF THE ITA NOS.43 & 100/PUN/2017 INA BEARINGS INDIA PVT. LTD. 3 ARMS LENGTH PRICE (ALP) OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS TO THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO). THE TPO OBSERVED THAT THO UGH THE ASSESSEE REPORTED TWELVE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS, BUT IT CATEGORIZED ITS BUSINESS INTO TWO SEGMENTS VIZ., MANUFACTURING SEGMENT AND TRADING SEGMENT. 4. AT THIS STAGE, IT IS RELEVANT TO MENTION THAT THE ONLY DISPUTE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE DETERMINATION OF ALP OF THE MANUFACTURING AS WELL AS TRADING SEGMENT BY EXCLUDING FOREIGN EXCHANGE (FOREX) FROM THE COMPUTATION OF PROFIT MARGINS UNDER THE TRANSACTIONAL NET MARGIN METHOD (TNMM). IN VIEW OF THE ABO VE SUBMISSION ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE RESTRICTING OURSELVES ONLY TO THE INCLUSION OR OTHERWISE OF FOREX GAIN/LOS S IN THE COMPUTATION OF OPERATING MARGIN UNDER THE TNMM BOTH FOR THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE COMPARABLES. 5. THE LD. AR. SUBMITTED THAT THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE GAIN/LOSS PERTAINING TO THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS ALONE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSEE AS AN ITEM OF OPERATING REVENUE, WHICH WAS WRON GLY CONSIDERED BY THE TPO AS NON-OPERATING IN THE COMPUTATION OF THE ALP AND HENCE SUCH A VIEW SHOULD BE REJECTED. THIS WAS OP POSED ITA NOS.43 & 100/PUN/2017 INA BEARINGS INDIA PVT. LTD. 4 BY THE LD. DR, WHO CONTENDED THAT FOREX GAIN/LOSS WAS NON- OPERATING IN NATURE AND HENCE WAS RIGHTLY EXCLUDED BY THE AUTHORITIES IN THE COMPUTATION OF OP/OC UNDER THE TNMM. 6. WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTION RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE INCLUSION OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE GAIN/LOSS IN THE OPERATING REVENUE/COSTS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THAT OF THE COMPARABLES. WHEN WE ADVERT TO THE NATURE OF SUCH FOREIGN EXCHANGE GAIN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. DR THAT THE SAME IS IN RELATION TO THE TRADING ITEMS EMANATING FROM THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS. IF THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE GAIN/LOSS DIRECTLY RESULTS FROM THE TRADING ITEMS, WE FAIL TO APPRECIATE AS TO HOW SUCH FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION G AIN/LOSS CAN BE CONSIDERED AS NON-OPERATING. 7. THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ACIT VS PRAKASH I. SHAH (2008) 115 ITD 167 (MUM)(SB) HAS HELD THAT THE GAIN DUE TO FLUCTUATIONS IN THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE RATE EMANATING FROM EXPO RT IS ITS INTEGRAL PART AND CANNOT BE DIFFERENTIATED FROM THE EXPORT PROCEEDS SIMPLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE FOREIGN CURRENCY RATE HAS INCREASED SUBSEQUENT TO SALE BUT PRIOR TO REALIZATION. IT WENT ON TO ADD THAT WHEN GOODS ARE EXPORTED AND INVOICE IS RAISED IN C URRENCY ITA NOS.43 & 100/PUN/2017 INA BEARINGS INDIA PVT. LTD. 5 OF THE COUNTRY WHERE SUCH GOODS ARE SOLD AND SUBSEQUEN TLY WHEN THE AMOUNT IS REALIZED IN THAT FOREIGN CURRENCY AND THEN CON VERTED INTO INDIAN RUPEES, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT IS RELATABLE TO THE EXPO RTS. IN FACT, IT IS ONLY THE TRANSLATION OF INVOICE VALUE FROM THE FOREIG N CURRENCY TO THE INDIAN RUPEES. THE SPECIAL BENCH HELD THAT TH E EXCHANGE RATE GAIN OR LOSS CANNOT HAVE A DIFFERENT CHARAC TER FROM THE TRANSACTION TO WHICH IT PERTAINS. THE BENCH FOUND FALLACY IN THE SUBMISSION MADE ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE THAT THE EXCHANGE RATE DIFFERENCE SHOULD BE DETACHED FROM THE EXPORTS AND BE CO NSIDERED AS AN INDEPENDENT TRANSACTION. EVENTUALLY, THE SPECIAL BENCH HE LD THAT SUCH EXCHANGE RATE FLUCTUATION GAIN/LOSS ARISING FROM EXPO RTS CANNOT BE VIEWED DIFFERENTLY FROM SALE PROCEEDS. 8. THE RELIANCE OF THE LD. DR ON SAFE HARBOUR RULES TO CONTEND THAT FOREIGN EXCHANGE GAIN OR LOSS BE TAKEN AS NON-OPERATIN G, IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT IN SUCH RULES, FOREX GAIN /LOSS HAS BEEN TREATED AS NON-OPERATING. HOWEVER IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT SUCH RULES ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UN DER CONSIDERATION. EVEN THE RELIANCE OF THE LD. DR ON CERTAIN D ECISIONS TAKING COGNIZANCE OF SAFE HARBOUR RULES FOR THE PERIOD AN TERIOR TO THEIR INSERTION IN OTHER CONTEXTS, DOES NOT IMPROVE THE CASE OF THE ITA NOS.43 & 100/PUN/2017 INA BEARINGS INDIA PVT. LTD. 6 DEPARTMENT. FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT IN PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. AMERIPRISE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (ITA 206/2016) DECIDED ON 23.03.2016, HOLDING FOREIGN EXCHANGE GAINS E ARNED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS IN RELATION TO TRADING ITEMS AND EMANATING FROM INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS, CANNOT BE TREATED AS NON-OPER ATING LOSSES AND GAINS, THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN PR. CIT VS. B.C. MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD. (2018) 403 ITR 45 (DEL) REITERATED HELD THAT FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION IN RELATION TO TRADING TRANSACTIONS, PRIOR TO SAFE HARBOR RULES FROM 2013, IS OPE RATING GAIN OR LOSS. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION, WE ARE O F THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE AMOUNT OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE GAIN /LOSS ARISING OUT OF TRADING TRANSACTIONS IS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERE D AS AN ITEM OF OPERATING REVENUE/COST, BOTH FOR THE ASSESSEE AS W ELL AS THE COMPARABLES. THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS, THERE FORE, ALLOWED. 9. THE NEXT GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DETERMINATION OF NIL ALP OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION OF PAYMENT OF MANAGEMENT FEES AMOUNTING TO RS.5,25,95,383/- . 10. THE FACTS APROPOS THIS ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE R EPORTED ONE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS AS PROCUREMENT OF OTHER SERV ICES ITA NOS.43 & 100/PUN/2017 INA BEARINGS INDIA PVT. LTD. 7 AND ITEMS WITH TRANSACTED VALUE AT RS.9,06,79,154/-. THIS INCLUDED A SUM OF RS.5,25,95,383/- ON ACCOUNT OF MANAG EMENT FEE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE (AE). AS NO SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT COMPARABILITY ANALYSIS OF THIS TRANSA CTION WAS DONE AND THE ASSESSEE HAD INCLUDED SUCH COST WITH OTHE R OPERATING COSTS QUA THE MANUFACTURING AND TRADING SEGMENTS, THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO) REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO MA KE COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS IN RESPECT OF THIS PAYMENT VIS--VIS OTHER COMPARABLE AND INDEPENDENT THIRD PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE SU BMITTED CERTAIN DETAILS. THE TPO OBSERVED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE PROVIDED DETAILS ABOUT RECEIPT OF SERVICES AND THE BENEFITS DE RIVED THEREFROM BUT IT COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE RECEIPT OF SERVICES THROUGH E-MAILS OR CONTEMPORANEOUS DOCUMENTS. THE TPO OP INED THAT THE SERVICES PERFORMED BY THE AE FELL INTO THE CATEGORY O F STEWARDSHIP FOR WHICH NO PAYMENT WAS NECESSARY. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE MAKING ANY COMPARISON WITH SIMILAR SERVICE S IT COULD HAVE AVAILED FROM THIRD PARTIES, THE TPO HELD THAT THE A LP OF THIS TRANSACTION WAS TO BE TAKEN AT NIL. HE, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT AMOUNTING TO RS.5.2 5 CRORE VIDE PARA 8.11 ON PAGE 87 OF HIS ORDER. HOWEV ER AT THE END ITA NOS.43 & 100/PUN/2017 INA BEARINGS INDIA PVT. LTD. 8 OF HIS ORDER ON PAGE 89, HE PROPOSED ONLY A TRANSFER P RICING ADJUSTMENT OF RS.7,35,83,486/- IN RELATION TO THE TRADING S EGMENT. IN THE PENULTIMATE PARA OF HIS ORDER, THE TPO CONCLUDED THA T : `IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSION AS ABOVE, THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE O F THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS NOT BEING DISTURBED EXCEPT FOR TRANSACTION RELATING TO TRADING SEGMENT. 11. IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE COMPUTED TOTAL INCOME AT RS.7,35,83,486/- BY MAKING THE SO LITARY TRANSFER PRICING ADDITION OF THE EQUAL AMOUNT PROPOSED BY TH E TPO UNDER THE TRADING SEGMENT TO THE NIL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. OUR ATTENTION HAS NOT BEEN DRAWN TOWARDS ANY RECTIFICATION ORDER HAVING PASSED EITHER BY THE AO OR THE T PO ON THIS SCORE. 12. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE INADVERTENTLY CHALLENGED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE SO-CALLED TRANSFER PRICING ADDITION OF RS.5,2 5,95,383/- TOWARDS MANAGEMENT FEES PAID TO THE AES, WHICH WAS, IN FA CT, NEVER MADE, THE LD. CIT(A) TOO FELL INTO ERROR BY ADJUDICA TING THE ISSUE WITHOUT NOTICING THAT SINCE NO ADDITION WAS MADE, THE ISSUE DID NOT ARISE OUT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEFORE HIM AND MORE SO WHEN NO NOTICE OF ENHANCEMENT FOR SUCH AN ADDITION WAS ISS UED BY ITA NOS.43 & 100/PUN/2017 INA BEARINGS INDIA PVT. LTD. 9 HIM. THE LD. CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE TPO ON THIS ISSUE. THE TPO PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT OF THE TRANSFER PRICING ADDITION BY A FURTHER SUM OF RS.2,41,68,991/- ON THE BAS IS OF SOME INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON PAGE 29 OF THE T.P. STUDY REPORT. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.2.41 CRORE AND ODD DID NOT PERTAIN TO THE MANAGEMENT FEES, BUT WAS PAID TO THE GERMAN AE AS PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT FEES. THE LD. CIT(A) D IRECTED THE AO TO EXAMINE THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE N MAKE OR DELETE THE ADDITION DEPENDING UPON THE ASCERTAINMENT OF ITS TR UE CHARACTER. 13. FROM THE NARRATION OF THE ABOVE FACTS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THE ISSUE OF PAYMENT OF MANAGEMENT F EES BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS AE, FOR WHICH NEITHER ANY TRANSFER P RICING ADJUSTMENT WAS FINALLY RECOMMENDED NOR ANY ADDITION WAS M ADE BY THE AO. THE ENHANCEMENT NOTICE WAS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT (A) ONLY QUA THE ENHANCEMENT PROPOSED BY THE TPO DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS, WHICH ALSO REMAINED INCONCLUSIVE ENDING WITH A DIRECTION FROM THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE AO FOR MAKING A FURTHER ENQUIRY AND THEN DECIDING, WHICH IS IMPERMISSIBLE UNDER LAW A S SUCH A POWER OF RESTORATION HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM THE CIT(A) ITA NOS.43 & 100/PUN/2017 INA BEARINGS INDIA PVT. LTD. 10 BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2001 W.E.F. 1.6.2001. THE REVENUE V IDE ITS GROUND NO. 3 HAS ALSO CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) : `IN DIRECTING THE TPO TO RE-EXAMINE THE ISSUE OF THE MANAGEMENT SERVICES PAID. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS PALPABLE THA T THE ADJUDICATION BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE HAS NO LEGAL LEGS TO STAND ON. WE, THEREFORE, VACATE THE IMPUGNED ORDER TO THIS EXTENT AND RESTORE THE POSITION ON MANAGEMENT FEE AS WAS PREVALEN T AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THIS SCORE. 14. THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL IS AGGRIEVED BY THE GRAN T OF +-5% BENEFIT BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE ASSESSEE IN DETERMINING THE A LP. 15. WE HAVE HARD BOTH THE SIDES AND GONE THROUGH THE RELE VANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 92C(2) PRO VIDES THAT IF THE VARIATION BETWEEN THE ALP AND THE PRICE AT WHICH THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION HAS ACTUALLY BEEN UNDERTAKEN DOES NO T EXCEED THE SPECIFIED MARGIN, WHICH AT THE MATERIAL TIME WAS 5% , THEN THE PRICE AT WHICH THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION HAS ACTUALLY BEEN UNDERTAKEN SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE ALP. THE EFFEC T OF THIS PROVISO IS THAT SO LONG AS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ALP A S DETERMINED BY APPLYING ONE OF THE SPECIFIED METHODS AND THE PRICE AT WHICH THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION WAS UNDERTAKEN IS WITHIN THE ITA NOS.43 & 100/PUN/2017 INA BEARINGS INDIA PVT. LTD. 11 PRESCRIBED PERCENTAGE, NO TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT CAN B E MADE. THIS PROVISO WAS SUBSTITUTED BY THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2009 W.E.F. 01-10-2009. EXPLANATION TO SUB-SECTION (2) OF SEC TION 92C HAS CLARIFIED : THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECOND PROVISO SHA LL ALSO BE APPLICABLE TO ALL ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS ON 1 ST OCTOBER, 2009. THUS, IT IS OVERT THAT EVEN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, NAMELY, 2010-11, THE BENEFIT OF THE SECOND PROVISO WOULD BE AVAILABLE BY VIRTUE OF THE EXPLANATION GIVEN AT THE E ND OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF 92C. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THE LD. C IT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN EXTENDING THE BENEFIT OF +/-5% MARGIN IN DETERMINING THE ALP OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS. THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE FAILS. 16. THE ONLY OTHER EFFECTIVE GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS THE DIRECTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR EXCLUSION OF ADDITIONAL COMP ANIES SELECTED BY THE TPO FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES, WHICH AS PE R THE REVENUE, ARE COMPARABLE. 17. THE FACTS CONCERNING THIS ISSUE ARE THAT THE TPO VENTU RED TO DETERMINE THE ALP OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE TINKERED WITH THE LIST OF COMPARABLES DRAWN BY THE ITA NOS.43 & 100/PUN/2017 INA BEARINGS INDIA PVT. LTD. 12 ASSESSEE AND INTRODUCED CERTAIN FRESH COMPARABLES. THE A O MADE THE ADDITION ACCORDINGLY, WHICH WAS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSES SEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY DIREC TED TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN FRESH COMPANIES FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES , WHICH AS PER THE REVENUE ARE FUNCTIONALLY COMPARABLE. 18. THE LD. AR, AT THE VERY OUTSET, SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF A LL THE COMPANIES DIRECTED TO BE EXCLUDED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, AGAINST WHICH THE REVENUE HAS COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, ARE INCLUDED, ITS PROFIT MARGIN WOULD BE WITHIN THE PERMISSIBLE RANGE OF +/-5%, IF FOREX GAIN IS TREATED AS AN ITEM OF OPERATING NATURE. THE LD. DR DID NOT DISPUTE THIS POSITION. IN VIEW OF THE RIVAL BUT COMMON SUBMISSIONS, THOUGH WE TECHNICA LLY ACCEPT THE GROUND OF THE REVENUE, BUT IT WOULD NOT LEAD TO INC REASE IN THE TOTAL INCOME BY REASON OF ANY TRANSFER PRICING ADDITION . 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED TO TH E ABOVE EXTENT AND THAT OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY DISMISSED ON MERITS AND PARTLY HAVING BECOME ACADEMIC. ITA NOS.43 & 100/PUN/2017 INA BEARINGS INDIA PVT. LTD. 13 20. TO SUM UP, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND R EMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO/TPO FOR A FRESH DETERMINATION OF THE AL P OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION OF TRADING SEGMENT IN CONFOR MITY WITH THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07 TH JUNE, 2019. SD/- SD/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (R.S.SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VI CE PRESIDENT PUNE; DATED : 07 TH JUNE, 2019 / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. THE CIT(A)-13, PUNE 4. 5. THE PR.CIT-1, PUNE , , C / DR C, ITAT, PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE. / TRUE COPY // / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRE TARY , / ITAT, PUNE ITA NOS.43 & 100/PUN/2017 INA BEARINGS INDIA PVT. LTD. 14 DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 07-06-2019 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 07-06-2019 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS 7. DATE OF UPLOADING ORDER SR.PS 8. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 10. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE A.R. 11. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. *