ICON Clinical Research India Private Limited, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1034/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8466 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 08-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 23-04-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR MILIND MADHUKAR BHUSARI
• Keywords: Depreciation; Transfer pricing; International transaction
• Section: 143(3); 92E

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , !' . #$#% , & '' ( [ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./ I.T.A.NO.1034/MDS/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 M/S ICON CLINICAL RESEARCH INDIA PVT. LTD RMZ MILLENIA BUSINESS PARK BUILDING 3A, 2 ND FLOOR NO.143, DR. MGR ROAD KANDANCHAVADY, CHENNAI 600 034 VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COMPANY CIRCLE II(3) CHENNAI [PAN AAABCI 2834 E ] ( )* / APPELLANT) ( +,)* /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SRIRAM SE SHADRI, CA /RESPONDENT BY : DR. MILIND MADHUKAR BHUSARI, CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 08 - 0 9 - 2016 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21 - 0 9 - 2016 / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS DI RECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.2.2014 OF THE DEPUTY CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE II(3), CHENNAI, PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961(IN SHORT THE ACT) PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL U/S 144C(13) OF THE ACT, IT HAS ITA NO. 1034/14 :- 2 -: ALTOGETHER RAISED NINE GROUNDS OF WHICH GROUND NO.9 IS GENERAL IN NATURE NEEDING NO SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. 2. LD. AR, AT THE OUTSET, SUBMITTED THAT HE WAS NOT PR ESSING GROUND NOS. 4, 5 & 8 OF THE APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY, G ROUND NOS. 4,5 & 8 ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 3. GROUND NOS. 1 TO 3 OF THE APPEAL ASSAIL THE TRANSFE R PRICING ADJUSTMENT OF ` 3,37,17,672/- MADE IN RELATION TO ITS DATA MANAGEMENT SERVICES IN SO FAR AS TPO DID NOT EXCLU DE TWO COMPARABLES VIZ. M/S COSMIC GLOBAL LTD AND M/S E4E HEALTHCARE BUSINESS SERVICES PVT. LTD. FROM THE LIST OF COMPAR ABLES HE CONSIDERED FOR BENCHMARKING THE VALUE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRA NSACTIONS UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, A WHOLLY OWNE D SUBSIDIARY OF M/S ICON PLC. WAS PROVIDING CLINICAL TRIAL SERVICES AND DATA MANAGEMENT SERVICES TO ICON CLINICAL RESEARCH LTD, IRELAND. THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSES SEE DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR WERE AS UNDER: SR. NO. NATURE OF TRANSACTION AMOUNT ( `) METHOD 1 PROVISION OF CLINICAL RESEARCH SERVICES 150,079,985 2 PROVISION OF DATA MANAGEMENT SERVICES 248,728,450 ITA NO. 1034/14 :- 3 -: 3 REIMBURSEMENT OF PASS THROUGH COSTS 157,740,539 TNMM 4 TOTAL 55,65,48,794 5. THE DATA MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR WHICH ASSESSEE EA RNED `24,87,28,450/- FROM ITS AE WAS CONSIDERED UNDER IT ENABLED SEGMENT (ITES). ASSESSEE HAD SELECTED TNM METHOD AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD FOR BENCH MARKING SUCH INTERNATI ONAL TRANSACTIONS. 14 COMPARABLES WERE SELECTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND I T CALCULATED THE WEIGHTED PLI OF 10.6% FOR THESE 14 COMPANIES. THE COMPARABLES SELECTED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE FROM THE PROWESS AND CAPITAL LINE PLUS DATABASE. ASSESSEE HAD WORKED OUT ITS NET MARGIN AT 14.5% AND THUS, AS PER THE ASSESSEE, THERE WAS NO REQUIREMEN T FOR ANY ADJUSTMENT ON THE PRICING OF ITS INTERNATIONAL TRAN SACTIONS WITH THE AES. 6. WHEN THE MATTER WAS REFERRED TO THE TPO, FOR VARIOU S REASONS MENTIONED IN THE TPOS ORDER, HE REJECTED T EN COMPANIES CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE TPO REACHED A FINA L SET OF COMPARABLES OF FOUR AND ARRIVED AT THE ARITHMETICAL MEAN OF THE PLI OF SUCH COMPARABLES AS UNDER: SR.NO. NAME OF THE COMPANY OP/TC)% 1. COSMIC GLOBAL LTD 48.10 2. E4E - HEALTH SOLUTIONS LTD [F ORMERLY KNOWN AS NITTANY OUTSOURCING SERVICES PVT. LTD] 33.31 3. R SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL LTD.(SEG) 14.09 4. INFORMED TECHNOLOGIES INDIA LTD 23.29 ARITHMETIC MEAN 29.69 ITA NO. 1034/14 :- 4 -: 7. APPLYING THE PLI OF 29.69%, TPO RECOMMENDED AN UPWA RD ADJUSTMENT OF `3,37,17,672/- . 8. WHEN A DRAFT ORDER ON THE ABOVE LINES WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE IT CHOSE TO MOVE THE DRP. THE DRP, HOWEVE R, REJECTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT THE ALP DONE BY THE TPO WAS ABSOLUTELY IN ORDER . THEREAFTER, ASSESSMENT W AS COMPLETED BY MAKING AN ADDITION OF `3,37,17,672/- AS RECOMMENDED BY THE TPO. 9. NOW BEFORE US, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE LOWER AUTH ORITIES ERRED IN CONSIDERING M/S COSMIC GLOBAL LTD AND M/S E4E HEALTHCARE BUSINESS SERVICES PVT. LTD. AS PROPER COMPARABLES. AS PER THE LD. AR, THOUGH THESE TWO COMPANIES APPEARED IN THE ORIGINAL COMPARABLES SELECTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS TP STUDY, BEFORE T HE TPO IT HAD SOUGHT EXCLUSION THEREOF. RELYING ON PARA 6.8 OF THE ORDE R OF THE TPO, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD SOUGHT EXCLUSION OF M/ S COSMIC GLOBAL LTD. CITING THE FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE S AID COMPANY AND THAT OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, AS PER THE LD. AR, TRANSLATION SERVICES RENDERED BY THE SAID COMPANY ALONE FELL WITHIN THE ITE SEGMENT AND THE OUTSOURCING CAME TO 41% OF THE SALES. AS PER THE LD. AR, ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENGAGED IN ANY OUTSOURCING WORK. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT SIMILAR OBJECTIONS WERE RAISED BEFORE THE DRP ALSO BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, DRP ALSO REJECTED ITS CONTENTIO NS. LD. AR ITA NO. 1034/14 :- 5 -: SUBMITTED THAT BOTH THE TPO AS WELL AS DRP HAD BRUS HED ASIDE THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST SELECTION OF M /S COSMIC GLOBAL LTD, FOR A SINGULAR REASON THAT THE SAID COMPANY F ORMED A PART OF THE ASSESSEES OWN TP STUDY. RELYING ON THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS QUARTZ SYSTEMS (P) LTD, [2010] 42 DTR 414, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE STOPPED FR OM SEEKING EXCLUSION OF A COMPARABLE JUST FOR A REASON THAT IT WAS A PART OF ITS OWN TP STUDY IF IT COULD SHOW THAT IT WAS FUNCTIONA LLY DISSIMILAR. 10. INSOFAR AS M/S E4E HEALTHCARE BUSINESS SERVICES PVT . LTD. WAS CONCERNED, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT CURRENT YEAR D ATA OF THE SAID COMPANY WAS NOT AVAILABLE IN PUBLIC DOMAIN. AS PER THE LD. AR, ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE FROM WHERE THE TPO HAD EXTRA CTED THE FINANCIAL RESULTS OF THE SAID COMPANY FOR THE RELEV ANT PREVIOUS YEAR FOR ARRIVING AT ITS PLI. THIS ASPECT, AS PER THE LD. A R WAS BROUGHT TO THE SPECIFIC NOTICE OF THE DRP IN ITS OBJECTION FILED B EFORE THE DRP. HOWEVER, THE DRP FOR THE VERY SAME REASON AS IT TOO K FOR M/S COSMIC GLOBAL LTD REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE . 11. IN SUPPORT OF HIS PLEADING FOR EXCLUSION OF M/S COM IC GLOBAL LTD, RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY THE LD. AR ON THE DECI SION OF PUNE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SCHLUMBERGER GLOBAL SUPPORT CENTRE LTD VS DY. DIT(INTL. TAXN-II) IN I.T.A.NO.86/PN/2013 DA TED 30.10.2015. ITA NO. 1034/14 :- 6 -: LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID DECISION WAS ALSO FO R THE VERY SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR(2009-10) AND ALSO ON ITE SEGMENT. I N SUPPORT OF HIS GROUND FOR EXCLUSION OF M/S E4E HEALTHCARE BUSINES S SERVICES PVT. LTD. THE LD. AR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF DELH I BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BECHTEL INDIA PVT. LTD VS D CIT IN I.T.A.NO. 1478/DEL/2015 DATED 21.12.2015. 12. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAV ING SELECTED THE TWO COMPANIES BY ITSELF IN ITS TP STUD Y SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO TURN DOWN AND ARGUE THAT THESE WERE FUNC TIONALLY DIFFERENT. FURTHER, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE REASONS MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR EXCLUSION OF THESE COMPANIES WERE NEVER ADDRESSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 13. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS NOT DISPU TED THAT BOTH M/S COSMIC GLOBAL LTD AND M/S E4E HEALTHCARE BUSINESS SERVICES PVT. LTD. APPEARED IN THE LIST OF COMPARABLES SELECTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS TP STUDY FOR BENCHMARKING THE VALUE OF INTERNATIONAL T RANSACTIONS WITH ITS AES. ASSESSEE HOWEVER, HAD OBJECTED TO THE INCLUSI ON OF THE ABOVE TWO COMPANIES BEFORE THE TPO AND DRP. DRP AS WELL AS TPO HAD NOT CONSIDERED THE MERITS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE SEEKING EXCLUSION OF THESE COMPARABLES FOR THE SOLE REASON THAT THESE TWO COMPANIES ITA NO. 1034/14 :- 7 -: WERE PART OF THE TP STUDY OF THE ASSESSEE. THE PL EADING OF THE ASSESSEE NOW BEFORE US IS THAT M/S COSMIC GLOBAL LT D WAS IN THE MEDICAL TRANSCRIPTION AND TRANSLATION SERVICES AND WAS OUTSOURCING ITS WORK. HENCE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. AR, IT COULD NO T BE CONSIDERED AS A PROPER COMPARABLE. RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON TH E DECISION OF THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SCHLUMBER GER GLOBAL SUPPORT LTD (SUPRA). VIS--VIS, M/S E4E HEALTHCARE BUSINES S SERVICES PVT. LTD., CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT ITS DATA FOR THE RE LEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR WAS NOT AVAILABLE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. SUPPORT HA S BEEN SOUGHT FROM THE DECISION OF DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BECHTEL INDIA PVT. LTD (SUPRA). BE THAT AS IT MAY, WHAT WE FIND IS THAT DRP HAD NOT ADJUDICATED THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE AS SESSEE SOLELY FOR A REASON THAT THESE COMPANIES WERE PART OF THE LIST O F THE TP STUDY OF THE ASSESSMENT. BY VIRTUE OF THE DECISION OF SPEC IAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF QUARTZ SYSTEMS(P) LTD(SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE OPIN ION THAT ASSESSEE CAN SEEK EXCLUSION OF A COMPANY THOUGH IT APPEARED IN THE LIST OF COMPARABLES IF IT COULD SHOW BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT IT WAS FUNCTIONALLY DIFFERENT FROM IT. FURTHER, P&H HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS QUARTZ SYSTEMS (P) LTD[2011] 62 DTR 182, HAD UPHELD THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH CITED SUPRA FOR THE S INGLE REASON THAT THE COMPARABILITY OF THE COMPANIES FOR WHICH EXCLUSIONS WERE SOUGHT, WERE REMITTED TO THE LOWER AUTHORITIES BY THE TRIBU NAL. ACCORDINGLY, ITA NO. 1034/14 :- 8 -: HERE ALSO WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT WHETHER M/S CO SMIC GLOBAL LTD AND M/S E4E HEALTHCARE BUSINESS SERVICES PVT. LTD. COULD BE CONSIDERED AS GOOD COMPARABLES HAVE TO BE LOOKED AFRESH BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER/TPO. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE TH E ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND REMIT THE ISSUE REGARDING THE COMPARABILITY OF M/S COSMIC GLOBAL LTD AND M/S E4E HEALTHCARE BUSINE SS SERVICES PVT. LTD. BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER/TPO FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ASSESSEE IS FREE T O RAISE ALL ITS OBJECTIONS AGAINST INCLUSION OF THE ABOVE COMPANIES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER/TPO AND THESE HAVE TO BE CONSIDER ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER/TPO WHILE PASSING THE ORDERS. 14. VIDE ITS GROUND NOS. 6 & 7, GRIEVANCE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT COMPUTATION OF THE PLI OF THE COMP ARABLE COMPANIES SELECTED WAS NOT PROPERLY DONE. 15. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS CHARGING DEPREC IATION AT A RATE MUCH HIGHER THAN WHAT WAS PRESCRIBED BY S CHEDULE XIV OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956. AS PER THE LD. AR, OUT O F THE FOUR COMPARABLES CONSIDERED BY THE TPO, M/S COSMIC GLOBA L LTD, M/S INFORMED TECHNOLOGIES INDIA LTD AND M/S R SYSTEMS I NTERNATIONAL LTD. HAD CHARGED DEPRECIATION AS PER SCHEDULE XIV RATES. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON PAGES 175, 185 AND 202 OF THE PAPER BOOK. AS AGAINST THIS, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD A HIGHER RATE O F DEPRECIATION THAN ITA NO. 1034/14 :- 9 -: WHAT WAS STIPULATED IN SCHEDULE XIV. RELYING ON RE VISED EDITION OF GUIDANCE NOTE ON REPORT U/S 92E OF THE ACT (TRANSF ER PRICING) ISSUED BY THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA, LD. AR SUBMITTED COMPARATIVE MARGIN TO OPERATING PROFITS WHEN CONSID ERED AS PLI SHOULD BE ONE BEFORE DEPRECIATION, WHEN DIFFERENT D EPRECIATION RATES HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY THE SELECTED COMPARABLES. RE LIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF PANAJI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S PENTAIR WATER INDIA P. LTD IN I.T.A.NO.03/PNJ/2013 AND 06/PNJ/2013 DATED 23.5.2014. 16. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 17. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS NOT DISPUTE D THAT THREE OF THE COMPARABLES SELECTED BY THE TPO VIZ. M/S COSMIC GLO BAL LTD, M/S INFORMED TECHNOLOGIES INDIA LTD AND M/S R SYSTEMS I NTERNATIONAL LTD. HAD APPLIED DEPRECIATION RATE PRESCRIBED IN SCHEDUL E XIV OF COMPANIES ACT WHILE ARRIVING ITS NET MARGIN. PLEADING OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT IT HAD APPLIED HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION WHILE ARRIV ING AT THE NET PROFIT. GUIDANCE NOTE ISSUED BY THE ICAI (AUGUST 2013) SPEC IFICALLY MENTIONS AT 6.30 (C)AS UNDER: ITA NO. 1034/14 :- 10 -: (C) ASSETS EMPLOYED THERE MAY BE DIFFERENCE IN A SSETS EMPLOYED AND THE METHOD OF PROVIDING DEPRECIATION. IN ORDER THAT SUCH DIFFERENCE DOES NOT IMPACT THE NET PROFIT, THE OPERATING MARGIN ON OPERATING COST BEFORE DEPRECIATION IS TAK EN AS PROFIT LEVEL INDICATOR. 18. ONE OF THE PRIMARY REQUISITE OF THE COMPARATIVE STU DY IS THAT MARGIN ARRIVED AT FOR THE COMPARABLES AS WELL AS TH AT OF THE ASSESSEE, SHALL ALWAYS BE ADJUSTED FOR DISSIMILARITIES IN TRE ATMENT OF VARIOUS EXPENDITURE INCLUDING NOTIONAL EXPENDITURE LIKE DEP RECIATION, WHEN SUCH DISSIMILARITIES CAN BE MEASURED AND QUANTIFIED . OTHERWISE, IT COULD ERODE THE COMPARABILITY. THE PANAJI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S PENTAIR WATER INDIA PVT. LTD (SUPRA) HA D HELD AS UNDER: THE COMMON CONTENTION IN RESPECT OF COMPUTATION OF TNMM I.E. OPERATING PROFIT TAKEN BY THE LD. AR IN RESPEC T OF THE COMPARABLES IS THAT WHILE COMPUTING THE PROFIT RATI O, PROFIT PRIOR TO DEPRECIATION SHOULD BE COMPUTED AS IT WILL GIVE TRU E AND FAIR PROFIT RATIO WITHOUT BEING AFFECTED BY THE DEPRECIATION CH ARGED BY EACH OF THE COMPANIES. WE NOTED THAT DIFFERENT COMPANIES HAVE ADOPTED DIFFERENT METHOD OF DEPRECIATION. IN FACT, FOR CHARGING DEPRECIATION TO THE PROFIT& LOSS ACCOUNT THERE ARE DIFFERENT PREVALENT RECOGNIZED METHODS OF DEPRECIATION. SOME ASSESSEE OPT FOR STRAIGHT LINE METHOD, SOME OPT FOR WRITTEN DOWN METHOD AND SOME OPT FOR SUM OF DIGIT METHOD OR EVEN REPLAC EMENT COST METHOD. SELECTION OF EACH METHOD WILL AFFECT T HE RATE AND QUANTUM OF DEPRECIATION EVEN IF THE NATURE OF THE A SSET IS THE SAME AND ULTIMATELY, THE NET PROFIT DERIVED BY THE COMPANY WILL VARY. FOR DETERMINING THE FAIR AND TRUE PROFIT, IN OUR OPINION, IT IS APPROPRIATE THAT THE EFFECT OF THE DEPRECIATION MUS T BE EXCLUDED OUT OF THE OPERATING PROFIT FOR DETERMINING THE OPE RATING PROFIT RATIO. THEREFORE, THE BEST WAY OF COMPUTING THE OPE RATING PROFIT, IN OUR OPINION, WILL BE TO COMPUTE THE PROFIT BEFOR E DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE COMPANY. THIS WILL TAKE OUT THE INCONFORMITY OR THE VARIATION IN THE PROFIT LEVEL O F THE COMPARABLES ARISING DUE TO ADOPTION OF DIFFERENT METHOD OF CHAR GING ITA NO. 1034/14 :- 11 -: DEPRECIATION. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE BOMBAY BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. REUTERS INDIA 24 ITR (TRIB) 231 (MUM) AS HAS BEEN RELIED ON BY THE L D. AR. WE NOTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THIS CASE HAS ADOPTED TH E CASH PROFIT/OPERATING COST AS THE CORRECT PROFIT LEVEL I NDICATOR UNDER THE TNMM METHOD. 19. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE OPINION THAT THE PROFIT L EVEL INDICATOR CONSIDERING THE MARGINS PRIOR TO DEPRECIA TION WOULD GIVE BETTER RESULTS IN THE COMPARABLE ANALYSIS AND BENCH MARKING OF THE TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE GIVEN FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES. WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER/TPO TO REWORK THE PLI OF THE COMPARABLES AFTER EXCLUDING THE DEPRECIATION COST AND BENCHMARK THE PLI OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO EXCLUDING THE DEPRECIATION COST. ORD ERED ACCORDINGLY. GROUND NOS. 6 AND 7 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 20. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PART LY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST SEPTEMBER, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ' ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( !' . #$#% ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) & / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER #$ / CHENNAI %& / DATED: 21 ST SEPTEMBER, 2016 RD ITA NO. 1034/14 :- 12 -: &' ()*) / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 4. + / CIT 2. / RESPONDENT 5. ),- . / DR 3. +/' / CIT(A) 6. -01 / GF