SYCOM CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT CIR 3(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1097/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2203 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: K
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 23-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K CHAND
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Opportunity of being heard; International transaction; Initiation of penalty proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 92D; 115JB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH K, MUMBAI BEORE SHRI JASON P. BOAZ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1097/MUM/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) SYSCOM CORPORATION LIMITED, 714, RAHEJA CHAMBERS, 213, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400021 PAN:AABCS 2000C ... APPELLANT VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-CIR.3(3)(2), MUMBAI .... RESPOND ENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI SHA SHI TULSIYAN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI N.K.CHAND DATE OF HEARING : 10/12/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22/12/2015 ORDER PER JASON P. BOAZ, A.M: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E FINAL ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( IN SHORT T HE ACT) VIDE ORDER DATED 15/1/2015, IN PURSUANCE OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL (DRP) ISSUED UNDER SECTION 144C( 5) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 30/10/2014. 2 ITA NO. 1097/MUM/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE, BRIEFLY, ARE AS UNDER:- 2.1 THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS O F VALUE ADDED RESELLER AND MANUFACTURER OF SMART CARDS, SIM CARDS AND OTHER RELATED ACTIVITIES, FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2010-11 ON 14/10/2010 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.17,70,79,806/- UN DER NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND BOOK PROFITS UNDER SECT ION 115JB OF THE ACT OF RS.25,46,30,985/-. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/ S. 143(1) OF THE ACT AND THE CASE WAS SUBSEQUENTLY TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY . IN VIEW OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSE SSEE WITH ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES (AES), AS REPORTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FORM NO.3CEB, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE A REFERENCE TO THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO' ) FOR DETERMINATION OF THE ARMS LE NGTH PRICE (ALP) THEREOF. 2.2 FROM THE ASSESSEES TP STUDY AND DOCUMENTATION, THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKE N ITSELF TO BE THE TESTED PARTY AND CHARACTERIZED ITSELF AS A ROUTINE MANUFAC TURER OF SIM CARDS. THE ASSESSEE SELECTED THE TRANSACTIONAL NET MARGIN METH OD (TNMM) AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD (MAM) CARRYING OUT ITS CO MPARABILITY ANALYSIS ON THE PROWESS AND CAPITALINE DATA BASES, THE ASSES SEE SELECTED FIVE COMPANIES AS COMPARABLE WITH AN AVERAGE PROFIT OF 1.09% ON COST. AS THE PROFIT MARGIN OF THE ASSESSEE ARRIVED AT 5.31% ON COST, WAS HIGHER THAN THAT OF THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES, THE ASSESSEE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE PRICE CHARGED BY IT IN ITS INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIO NS WAS AT ARMS LENGTH. THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER EXAMINED THE ASSESSEE S TP STUDY AND REJECTED 3 ITA NO. 1097/MUM/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) THE SAME AS HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT IT WAS NOT RELI ABLE. THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER ALSO ADOPTED TNMM AS THE MAM AND AF TER EXAMINATION OF THE ASSESSEES TP STUDY, REJECTED FOUR OF THE FI VE COMPARABLES SELECTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE TRANSFER PRICING OFF ICER AFTER CARRYING OUT HIS OWN EXAMINATION AND SEARCH, FINALLY SELECTED TH E FOLLOWING COMPARABLES, RETAINING ONE COMPARABLE SELECTED BY T HE ASSESSEE:- S.NO. NAME OF THE COMPANY OP/TC % 1. GEMNI COMMUNICATIONS LTD. 17.97 2. M-TECH INNOVATIONS LTD. 10.66 3. VALIANT COMMUNICATIONS LTD. 2.71 4. SHARON SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. 14.86 ARITHMETICAL MEAN 11.55% IN HIS ORDER U/S.92CA OF THE ACT DATED 13/1/2014, THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER PROPOSED A TP ADJUSTMENT OFRS.17,14 ,99,900/- TO THE ALP OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BY THE A SSESSEE WITH ITS AES. CONSEQUENT THERETO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE DRAFT ORDER OF ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(1) OF THE ACT, W HEREIN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DETERMINED AT RS.34,86,99,850/- WH ICH, INTER-ALIA, INCLUDED THE PROPOSED TP ADJUSTMENT OF RS.17,14,99, 900/-. 2.3 AGGRIEVED BY THE DRAFT ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS OBJECTIONS THERETO BEFORE THE DRP. THE DRP DISPOSED OFF THE ASSESSEES OBJECTIONS BY ISSUI NG CERTAIN DIRECTIONS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER/TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER, UNDER SECTION 144C(5) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 30/10/2014, WHEREBY THE TP ADJUSTMENT TO THE ALP OF THE ASSESSEES INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION S WAS RE-WORKED/RE- COMPUTED BY THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER AT RS.10,7 2,97,970/-. THE 4 ITA NO. 1097/MUM/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY PROCEEDED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER D ATED 15/1/2015, WHEREIN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DETERMINED A T RS.28,44,01,940/- IN VIEW OF THE FOLLOWING ADDITION S:- (I) TP ADJUSTMENT - RS. 10,72,97,970/- (II) UN-RECORDED AIR - 24,160/- 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE FINAL ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, DATED 15/1/2015, THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRE D THIS APPEAL RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- (1)ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. A.O. ERRED IN FRAMING ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) MAK ING ADDITIONS AGGREGATING TO OF RS 10,73,22,1301- WHICH IS COMPLETELY UNJUSTIFIED A ND UNWARRANTED IN LAW. (2) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. A.O. ERRED IN MAKING A REFERENCE TO THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO) WIT HOUT RECORDING ANY REASONS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS PROVIDED U/S 92CA(1) BASED ON W HICH HE HAS REACHED A CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS 'NECESSARY OR EXPEDIENT' TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE LD. TPO FOR COMPUTATION OF THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE ('ALP'). (3) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD. A.O. BASED ON THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL (' DRP') ERRED IN REJECTING THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS UNDERTAKEN BY THE APPELLANT WHICH WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT READ WITH THE RULES FOR ESTAB LISHING THE ALP OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS. (4) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD. A.O. BASED ON THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE DRP ERRED IN MAKING AN ADJU STMENT TO THE ALP BY ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY RS. 10,72,97,970/- U /S 92CA(3). (5) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. AO BASED ON THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE DRP HAS ERRED IN REJECTING M/S PUNJAB COMMUNICATION LTD. FOR DETERMINING THE ALP ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME IS FUNCTIONALLY INCOMPARABLE, A PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING AND THAT IT WAS ALSO REJE CTED BY THE HON'BLE DRP FOR AY 2009-10. 5 ITA NO. 1097/MUM/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) (6) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. AO BASED ON THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE DRP HAS ERRED IN REJECTING M/S FIBCOM INDIA LTD FOR DETERMINING THE ALP ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME IS FUNCTIONALLY INCOMPARABLE, A PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING AND THAT IT WAS ALSO REJE CTED BY THE HON'BLE DRP FOR AY 2009-10. (7) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD. AO BASED ON THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE DRP HAS ERRED IN REJECTING M/S BHARATI TELETECK LTD FOR DETERMINING THE ALP ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME IS FUNCTIONALLY INCOMPARABLE, A PUBLIC SECTION UNDERTAKING AND THAT IT WAS ALSO REJ ECTED BY THE HON'BLE DRP FOR AY 2009-10. (8) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD. AO BASED ON THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE DRP HAS ERRED IN REJECTING M/S X L TELECOM & ENERGY LTD FOR DETERMINING THE ALP ON THE GROUND THAT IT FOLLOWS A DIFFERENT ACCOUNTING YEAR AS COMPARED TO THE APPELLANT AND THAT IT WAS ALSO REJE CTED BY THE HON'BLE DRP FOR AY 2009-10. (9) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD. A.O. BASED ON DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE DRP HAS ERRED IN CONSIDERI NG M/S GEMINI COMMUNICATION LTD AS COMPARABLE ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS CONSIDE RED COMPARABLE BY THE DRP IN THE APPELLANT'S OWN CASE FOR AY 2008-09 & 2009-10; WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FUNCTIONAL INCOMPARABILITY OF THE COMPANY WHICH HAS NOW ALSO BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE LD. TPO FOR AY 2008-09. (10) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. A.O. BASED ON DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE DRP HAS ERRED IN CONSIDERIN G M/S SHARON SOLUTIONS PVT LTD. AS COMPARABLE ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS CONSIDERED COMPARABLE BY THE TPO IN THE APPELLANT'S OWN CASE FOR AY 2009-10, WITHOUT APPREC IATING THE FUNCTIONAL INCOMPARABILITY OF THE COMPANY. (11) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS, BASED ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE COMPANIES SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS; (12) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD. A.O. BASED ON THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE DRP HAS ERRED IN NOT ALLOWI NG AN ADJUSTMENT FOR DIFFERENCES IN WORKING CAPITAL EMPLOYED BY THE APPELLANT VIS-A- VIS THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES AND THEREBY IGNORING THE ORDER PASSED BY HON'BLE IT AT IN APPELLANT'S OWN CASE FOR AY 2008-09. (13) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. A.O. BASED ON THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE DRP HAS ERRED IN ADOPTING A FLAWED APPROACH BY USING SINGLE YEAR DATA AS AGAINST THE MULTIPLE YEAR DATA USED BY THE APPELLANT TO COMPUTE THE ALP OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS OF THE APPELL ANT USING TNMM METHOD BY HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO SHOW ANY E VIDENCE THAT THE EARLIER YEAR DATA HAS INFLUENCE ON THE PROFITS AND MARGINS OF THE APP ELLANT IN DETERMINING ALP. (14) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. A.O. BASED ON THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE DRP HAS ERRED IN CONSIDERIN G DATA NOT AVAILABLE TO THE APPELLANT AT THE TIME OF PREPARING THE TRANSFER PRI CING DOCUMENTATION, FOR DETERMINING THE ALP OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIO NS. 6 ITA NO. 1097/MUM/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) (15) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. A.O. BASED ON THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE DRP HAS ERRED IN NOT APPLYI NG THE PROVISO TO SECTION 92C(2) OF THE ACT AND HAS FAILED TO ALLOW THE APPELLANT TH E BENEFIT OF UPWARD VARIATION OF 5 PERCENT IN DETERMINING ALP AND NOT THUS CONSIDERING THE ORDER PASSED BY HON'BLE ITAT IN APPELLANT'S OWN CASE FOR AY 2008-09. (16) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. A.O. BASED ON THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE DRP HAS ERRED IN NOT RESTRI CTING THE ADJUSTMENT TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT TO THE QUANTUM OF ITS INTER NATIONAL TRANSACTIONS AND THEREBY IGNORING THE ORDER PASSED BY HON'BLE ITAT I N APPELLANT'S OWN CASE FOR AY 2008-09. (17) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHICH PROVIDE SEPARATE PROFITABILITY FROM TRA NSACTIONS WITH RELATED AND UNRELATED PARTIES; 18) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. AO. ERRED IN MAKING AN ADJUSTMENT OF RS. 24,160/-- ON ACCOUNT OF NON-RE CONCILIATION OF AIR, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ALLEGED INTEREST INC OME IS DUE TO MISTAKE IN UPLOADING OF DATA BY THE BANK AND DOES NOT PERTAIN TO AY 2010 -11. (19) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD. AO HAS ERRED IN PROPOSING TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1 )(C) OF THE ACT AGAINST THE APPELLANT. (20) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. AO. ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING TDS CREDIT OF RS. 4,55,426 (RS. 1,1 7,09,791 - RS. 1,12,54,365) TO THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE LD. A O. BE GIVEN SUITABLE DIRECTION TO ALLOW T.D.S. CREDIT OF RS. 4,55,426. (21) THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, ALTER OR DELETE ALL OR MODIFY ANY OR ALL THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, INTER-A LIA, FILED A GROUND WISE CHART INDICATING THE POSITION ON EACH ISSUE RA ISED IN THIS APPEAL. 4. THE GROUNDS AT S.NO.1 TO 4 AND 21 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND NOT BEING ARGUED BEFORE US ARE RENDERED INFRUCTUOUS AND ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 5. GROUND NO.5: REJECTION OF PUNJAB COMMUNICATIONS LTD. AS COMPARABLE. 7 ITA NO. 1097/MUM/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) 5.1 IN THIS GROUND, THE ASSESSEE ASSAILS THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN REJECTING PUNJAB COMMUNICATIONS LTD. AS CO MPARABLE ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME IS NOT FUNCTIONALLY COMPARABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSE E FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER IN ITA NO.327/MUM/2013 DATED 12/7/2013 IN THE ASSESSEES O WN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 HAD UPHELD THE ORDERS OF TH E AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT PUNJAB COMMUNICATION LTD. CANNOT BE CONS IDERED AS A COMPARABLE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR DETERMINATION OF ALP . 5.2 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE APPEARING FOR T HE REVENUE IN THE MATTER AND PERUSED AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MAT ERIAL ON RECORD; INCLUDING THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT CITED(SUPRA). WE FIND THAT THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL HAD REJECTED THE AS SESSEES GROUND SEEKING INCLUSION OF PUNJAB COMMUNICATION LTD. AS A COMPARABLE TO THE ASSESSEE IN ITS ORDER IN ITA NO. 327/MUM/2013 DATED 13/07/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, WHEREIN AT PARAS 19 AND 20 THEREOF IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER:- 19. AS REGARDS, EXCLUSION OF PUNJAB COMMUNICATION LTD, WE FIND FROM THE RECORD THAT THE SAID COMPANY IS A PERSISTENT LOSS MAKING C OMPANY. THE FINANCIAL DETAILS GIVEN AT THE BACK SIDE OF PAGE NO.70 OF THE PAPER B OOK SHOW THAT FOR THE LAST FOUR YEARS THIS COMPANY HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY SUFFERING LOSS. THE PERSISTENCE LOSS FROM YEAR AFTER YEAR ITSELF SHOWS EXISTENCE OF EXCEPTION AL AND EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES AND THEREFORE IS A GOOD REASON FOR EXCLUSION OF THE CO MPANY FROM COMPARABLES. THERE IS A CONSISTENCE VIEW OF THIS TRIBUNAL ON THIS POIN T THAT A COMPANY SHOWING PERSISTENT LOSSES FROM YEAR AFTER YEAR CANNOT BE CO NSIDERED AS A GOOD COMPARABLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINATION OF ALP. IN THE CA SE OF ADVANCE POWER DISPLAY VS. ACIT (SUPRA) ONE OF US THE JUDICIAL MEMBER IS A PAR TY TO THE SAID DECISION HAS TAKEN A SIMILAR VIEW IN PARA 10.2 UNDER:- 10.2 EVEN OTHERWISE WHEN THE COMPARABILITY OF THE CASE HAS TO BE TESTED INDEPENDENTLY FOR EACH YEAR, THEN WITHOUT EXAMINATI ON OF THE COMPARABILITY, NO CASE CAN BE ACCEPTED AS A COMPARA BLE, SOLELY ON THE BASIS 8 ITA NO. 1097/MUM/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) THAT IT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AS COMPARABLE IN THE SUB SEQUENT YEAR. FROM THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMPANY M/S.BCC FUBA INDIA LTD . IT IS CLEAR THAT THIS COMPANY IS SHOWING PERSISTING LOSS FROM YEAR AFTER YEAR AND THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE SERIES OF DECISIONS OF THIS TRIBUNAL ON THE POINT THAT PERSISTING LOSS MAKING COMPANY CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A GOOD COMPARABLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINATION OF THE ALP. 20. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND FACT AND CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE HOLD THAT THE PUNJAB COMMUNICATION LTD. WHICH IS SU FFERING PERSISTENCE LOSS YEAR AFTER YEAR FOR LAST FOUR YEARS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS GOOD COMPARABLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINATION OF ALP. 5.2.2 THE AFORESAID DECISION/FINDING WAS FOLLOWED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IN ITS ORDER IN ITA NO.1683/MUM/2014 DATED 13/3/2015. FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 (SUPRA), WE HOLD THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, PUNJAB COMMUNICATION LTD. CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A GOOD C OMPARABLE TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE ON HAND FOR DETERMINATION OF T HE ALP OF ITS INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUND N O.5 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 6. GROUND NO.6 TO 8, 10 & 11: 6.1 IN THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. REPRESENTATIV E FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE A T S.NO.6 TO 8 AND 10 &11 ARE NOT BEING PRESSED IN THIS APPEAL. IN VIE W OF THESE GROUNDS AT S.NO.6 TO 8 AND 10 & 11 NOT BEING PRESSED, THEY ARE RENDERED INFRUCTUOUS AND ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 7. GROUND NO.9 : INCLUSION OF GEMINI COMMUNICATIONS LT D. AS A COMPARABLE: 9 ITA NO. 1097/MUM/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) 7.1 IN THIS GROUND, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE ASSAILED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN CONSIDERING M/S. GEMINI COMMUNICATIONS LTD., AS A COMPARABLE. IT WAS SUBMI TTED THAT A CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES O WN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IN ITA NO.327/MUM/2013 HAD RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER TO EXAMINE TH E FUNCTIONAL COMPARABILITY OF THIS COMPANY TO THE ASSESSEE IN TH E CASE ON HAND. 7.2 PER CONTRA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FOR INCLUDING THIS COMPANY I.E. GEMINI COMMUNICATIONS LTD. AS A C OMPARABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. 7.3.1 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES AND PERUSED AND CA REFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT TH E CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IN ITA NO.327/MUM/2013 DATED 13/7/2013 HAS REMANDE D THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER FOR FRESH EXAMINATION HOLDING AS UNDER AT PARA -18 OF ITS ORDER:- IT IS CLEAR FROM THE FINDINGS OF THE DRP THAT M/S. GEMINI COMMUNICATION WAS PART OF THE TRANSFER PRICING STUDY OF THE ASSESSEE BUT W HILE SELECTING THE COMPARABLES THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCLUDED THE SAID COMPANY IN THE L IST OF COMPARABLES WITHOUT GIVING ANY SPECIFIC REASONS FOR NOT INCLUDING IN T HE COMPARABLE LIST. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED ANY REASON IN THE TRANSF ER PRICING STUDY FOR NON-INCLUSION OF GEMINI COMMUNICATION IN THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. THOUGH, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AN OBJECTION BEFORE THE DRP THAT THE SAID CO MPANY IS IN A DIFFERENT BUSINESS WHICH INCLUDES SERVICES AND SOLUTION OF VARIOUS NAT URES TO TELECOM COMPANIES. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, POINTED OUT THAT THE SAI D COMPANY HAS SHOWN COST OF MATERIAL IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WHICH HAS B EEN COUNTERED BY THE LD.AR BY REFERRING THE NOTES ON ACCOUNT AND THE ANNUAL REPO RT TO SHOW THAT THE COST OF MATERIAL RELATES TO THE VALUE OF IMPARTED MATERIAL CONSUMED IN PROVIDING SERVICES. ALL THESE ASPECTS HAVE NOT BEEN EXAMINED BY THE AUT HORITIES BELOW WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE OF COMPARABILITY BECAUSE THE MAIN THRUST OF THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE INCLUSION OF GEMINI COMMUNICATION WAS S UPER NORMAL PROFIT EARNED BY THE SAID COMPANY. THEREFORE, NEITHER THE GROUND OF FUNCTIONAL NON-COMPARABILITY 10 ITA NO. 1097/MUM/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) WAS SERIOUSLY RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE NOT IT WAS PRO PERLY EXAMINED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE OF FUNCTIONAL COMPARABILITY OF M/S. GEMINI COMMUNICATION TO THE R ECORD OF THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER FOR PROPER EXAMINATION AND ADJUDICATION. WE MAY CLARIFY THAT IF ONLY A SEGMENT OF THE BUSINESS OF M/S. GEMINI COMMUNICATIO N IS FOUND AS COMPARABLE TO THE ASSESSEE THEN THE SEGMENTAL RESULTS MAY BE CONS IDERED FOR DETERMINATION OF ALP. 7.3.2 FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE CO-OR DINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 (SUPRA) WE SET ASIDE THE ISSUE OF EXAMINATION OF THE FUNCT IONAL COMPARABILITY OF GEMINI COMMUNICATIONS LTD. TO THE FILE OF THE TRANS FER PRICING OFFICER FOR PROPER EXAMINATION AND ADJUDICATION AND ALSO CL ARIFY THAT IF ONLY A SEGMENT OF THE BUSINESS OF GEMINI COMMUNICATIONS LT D. IS FOUND AS COMPARABLE TO THE ASSESSEE, THEN THE SEGMENTAL RESU LTS MAY BE CONSIDERED FOR DETERMINATION OF ARM'S LENGTH PRICE . NEEDLESS TO ADD, THAT THE ASSESSEE BE AFFORDED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND FILING DETAILS/SUBMISSIONS IN THIS REGARD, WHICH SH ALL BE DULY CONSIDERED. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUND NO .9 IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. GROUND NO.12- WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT: 8.1 THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE REQUESTS THE GRANT OF WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT, IN RESPECT OF THE WORKING CAPI TAL EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE VIS--VIS THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ALLOWED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE HEARD BO TH THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. DEPARTM ENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IN THE MATTER AND CONSIDERED THE MA TERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT A CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE 11 ITA NO. 1097/MUM/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IN ITA NO.327/MUM/2013 DATED 13/7/2013(SUPRA) ON FINDING THAT THE ISSUE OF WORKI NG CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY EXAMINED BY THE AU THORITIES BELOW HAS REMITTED THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER FOR PROPER EXAMINATION OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM. FOLLOW ING THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09(SUPRA), WE ALSO R EMIT TO THE FILE OF THE TPO THE ISSUE OF EXAMINATION OF THE ASSESSEES PLEA FOR BEING ALLOWED WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT IN RESPECT OF TH E WORKING CAPITAL EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE VIS--VIS THE COMPARABLE C OMPANIES. NEEDLESS TO ADD, THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE AFFORDED ADE QUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND TO FILE DETAILS/SUBMISSIONS IN T HIS REGARD WHICH SHALL BE DULY CONSIDERED BEFORE DECIDING THE MATTER. IT IS ACCORDINGLY ORDERED. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUND NO.12 IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. IN GROUND NO.13 THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGES THE ACTION OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN USING SINGLE YEARS DATA AS AG AINST MULTIPLE YEARS DATA USED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENT ATIVE IN THE MATTER AND PERUSED AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON R ECORD. RULE 10B(4) R.W. RULE(4) OF THE IT RULES, 1962, STIPULATE THAT CONTEMPORANEOUS INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS F AR AS POSSIBLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPARING UNCONTROLLED TRANSACTIONS WITH THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETER MINING THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE THEREOF. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE COMPARABILITY OF AN 12 ITA NO. 1097/MUM/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) UNCONTROLLED AND UNRELATED TRANSACTION WITH THE INT ERNATIONAL TRANSACTION HAS TO BE TESTED BY USING CURRENT YEARS DATA. IT IS ONLY WHEN CURRENT YEARS DATA DOES NOT GIVE A TRUE PICTURE OF THE AFFAIRS AND THE RESULTS OF THE COMPARABLES DUE TO THE EXISTENCE OF SOME ABNORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES CAN THE USE OF MULTIPLE YEAR DATA BE CONSIDERED. IF THERE BE NO SUCH ABNORMAL OR EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES/FA CTS EXISTING FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHICH COULD HAVE AN INFLUE NCE ON THE RESULTS AS WELL AS ON THE DETERMINATION OF TRANSFER PRICING , THEN THE DATA RELATING TO THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE INTERNA TIONAL TRANSACTION HAS BEEN ENTERED INTO SHALL BE USED FINDING NO MERIT IN THIS GROUND NO.13 PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 10.1 IN GROUND NO.14 , THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN CONSIDERING DATA NOT AVAILABLE TO TH E ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF PREPARATION OF ITS TRANSFER PRICING DOCUMEN TATION. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IN THE MATTER AND HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE CO-ORDINATE B ENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER IN ITA NO.327/MUM/2013 DATED 13/7/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE HAS CONSIDE RED THIS VERY ISSUE AND RULED AGAINST THE ASSESEE HOLDING AS UNDER AT P ARA 28 AND 29 THEREOF:- 28. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND REL EVANT RECORD WE FIND THAT AS PER THE PROVISION OF THE SECTION 92C(3) OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER HAS JURISDICTION/POWER TO COLLECT AND CONSI DER ALL RELEVANT MATERIAL AND INFORMATION APART FROM THE INFORMATION, DOCUMENTS A ND DATA PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION92D(3) TO DETERMI NE THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE IN RELATION TO THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION. IN THE CASE IN HAND THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH SINGLE YEAR/C URRENT DATA INSTEAD OF MULTI YEAR DATA WHICH WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFO RE, THE SINGLE YEAR DATA TAKEN 13 ITA NO. 1097/MUM/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) INTO CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINATION THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE WERE VERY MUCH AVAILABLE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AS WELL AS WITH THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF DETERMINATION OF ARM'S LENGTH PRICE BY THE TPO . T HE BANGALORE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF 27/7CUSTOMER COM PVT. LTD. HAS CONSIDERED AND DECIDE AN IDENTICAL IN PARA 8.5 AS UNDER: 8.5 USE OF DATA BY THE TPO AFTER THE CUT OFF DAT E AS REGARDS THE DATA USED BY THE TRANSFER PRICING OF FICER WHILE DETERMINING THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE, WE FIND THAT IT IS TO BE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 92D OF THE ACT THAT EVERY PERSON WHO HAS EN TERED INTO INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS IS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN INFORMATION AN D DOCUMENTATION THEREOF. RULE 10B(4) PROVIDES THAT THE INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS AS SPECIFIED UNDER RULE 10B(1) AND 10B(2) SHOULD AS FA R AS POSSIBLE BE CONTEMPORANEOUS AND SHOULD EXIST LATEST BY THE SP ECIFIED DATE REFERRED TO IN SECTION 92F(4) WHICH HAS THE SAME MEANING AS DU E DATE IN EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT. IN THE ASSESSEES CASE, THIS WOULD BE 30 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER AS IT IS A COMPANY. IT IS CLEAR , AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW, THAT THE ACT HAS NOT PR OVIDED FOR ANY CUT OFF DATE UP TO WHICH ONLY THE INFORMATION IN THE PUBLIC DOMA IN HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER WHILE ARRIVING AT THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE OR MAKING TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENTS . BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE BEING FOUND BY THE PROVISION OF THE ACT AND RULES ARE REQUIRED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION CONTEMPORANEOUS DATA RELEVA NT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION HAS TAK EN PLACE. THE ASSESSEE IS OBLIGED TO MAINTAIN THE INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATI ON AS REQUIRED RELATING TO INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS AS PER THE S PECIFIED DATE SO THAT IT CAN BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER O R THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR ANY OTHER AUTHORITY IN ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE AC T. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ACTION O F THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER IN USING CONTEMPORANEOUS DATA AT THE TIME O F TRANSFER PRICING AUDIT, THOUGH THE SAME MAY NOT HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF PREPARATION OF STATUTORY TRANSFER PRICING STUDY/DOC UMENTATION. 29. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGA LITY IN THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THIS ISSUES. FURTHER, THERE I S NO FETTER ON THE POWERS OF THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER IN GATHERING MORE RELEVANT INFORMATION, DOCUMENTS ETC. WHILE DETERMINING THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE IN RELATI ON TO INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION. HENCE, WE REJECT/DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSE E. 10.2 FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE CO-ORD INATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 (SUPRA) AND THE DECISION OF THE ITAT BANGALORE BENCH IN THE CASE OF 24/7 CUSTOMER.COM PVT. LTD. IN 227/ BANG/2012 DATED 9/11 /2012, WE DISMISS THIS GROUND NO.14 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 14 ITA NO. 1097/MUM/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) 11. IN GROUND NO.15 , THE ASSESSEE ASSAILS THE DIRECTION OF THE DRP IN NOT APPLYING THE PROVISO TO SECTION 92C(2) OF THE A CT AND THEREBY DENY THE ASSESSEE THE BENEFIT OF UPWARD VARIATION OF 5% IN DETERMINING THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE. THIS ISSUE IS MORE OF AN ACADE MIC NATURE AS THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 HAS BEEN AMENDED WITH RETROSPE CTIVE EFFECT FROM 1/4/2002 BY THE INTRODUCTION OF A CLARIFICATORY AM ENDMENT IN WHICH SECTION 92C(2A) WAS INSERTED AS PER FINANCE ACT, 20 12. THE NEW SECTION 92C(2A) OF THE ACT MANDATES THAT IF THE ARITHMETICA L MEAN PRICE FALLS BEYOND 5% FROM THE PRICE CHARGED IN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS, THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE ANY OPTION REFERRED TO IN SE CTION 92C(2) OF THE ACT. THUS, AS PER THE ABOVE AMENDMENT, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE 5% VARIATION IS ALLOWED ONLY TO JUSTIFY THE PRICE CHAR GED IN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS AND NOT FOR ADJUSTMENT PURPOSES. THE AFORESAID AMENDMENT HAS SETTLED THE ISSUE AND ACCORDINGLY TH E BENEFIT OF 5% IS NOT ALLOWABLE IN THE ASSESSEES CASE. THIS GROUND NO.14 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING NOT MAINTAINABLE, IS ACCORDINGLY DIS MISSED. 12. IN GROUND NO.16 , THE ASSESSEE ASSAILS THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP IN NOT RESTRICTING THE ADJUSTMENT TO THE QUANTUM OF I NTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS REGARD WE HA VE HEARD BOTH THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. DEPARTM ENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON REC ORD. WE CONCUR WITH THE VIEW THAT THE ADJUSTMENT IF ANY ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSFER PRICING SHALL BE RESTRICTED ONLY TO THE ASSESSEES INTERNAT IONAL TRANSACTIONS AND NOT TO THE ASSESSEES TRANSACTIONS AT THE ENTITY LE VEL. WE ACCORDINGLY DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER/TRANSFER PRICING OFFIC ER TO RESTRICT THE 15 ITA NO. 1097/MUM/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT ONLY TO EXTENT OF INTER NATIONAL TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUND NO.16 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 13. IN GROUND NO. 17 , THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN IGNORING ITS AUDITED SEGMENTAL ACCOUNTS, WHICH PROVIDE SEPARATE PROFITABILITY FROM TRANSACTING WIT H RELATED AND UNRELATED PARTIES. THOUGH RAISED, THIS GROUND WAS NOT ARGUED BEFORE US IN THE HEARING AND WE, THEREFORE, REJECT THIS GROUN D NO.17 AS INFRUCTUOUS. 14. IN GROUND NO.18 , THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN MAKING AN ADJUSTMENT OF RS.24,160/ - FOR NON- RECONCILIATION OF THE AIR. EXCEPT FOR RAISING THIS GROUND AND URGING THAT THE ISSUE BE REMANDED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION, WE FIND THAT THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE F OR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRIMA-FACIE CONTROVERT THE FINDING S OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE AT PARA 8.1 TO 8.4 OF THE FIN AL ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE REJECT THE GROUND NO.18 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 15. IN GROUND NO.19 , THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGES THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION IN INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECT ION271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. NO GRIEVANCE IS CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS GROUND BEING PREMATURE AND NOT MAINTAINABLE, I S DISMISSED. 16 ITA NO. 1097/MUM/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) 16. IN GROUND NO.20 , THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING TDS CREDIT OF RS .4,55,246/- TO THE ASSESSEE. AFTER HEARING BOTH PARTIES IN THE MATTER , WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAM INE AND VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOW TDS CREDIT TO THE ASSESSE E TO THE EXTENT ALLOWABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2010-11 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22/ 12/2015 SD/- SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (JASON P. BOAZ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT ME MBER MUMBAI, DATED 22/12/2015 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT , 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI VM , SR. PS 17 ITA NO. 1097/MUM/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 14/12/2015 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 15/12 /2015 SR.PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER