ACIT, CHENNAI V. Myunghwa Automotive India Private Limited, Kancheepuram

ITA 1186/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4992 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 22-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 29-04-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PATHLAVATH PEERYA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Transfer pricing; International transaction; Working capital adjustments; Wholly owned subsidiary

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH: CHENNAI . . . , '.. $ , ) BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S.SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1186/MDS/2016 & CO NO.179/MDS/2016 * * /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE-4(1), CHENNAI. VS. M/S.MYUNGHWA AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PVT. LTD., NO.112, SINAGADIVAKKAM VILLAGE, KANCHIPURAM DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU. [PAN: AAFCM 2148 H] ( - /APPELLANT) ( ./- /RESPONDENT) - 0 / APPELLANT BY : MR.PATHLAVATH PEERYA, CIT ./- 0 /RESPONDENT BY : MR.RAGHUNATHAN SAMPATH, ADV. 0 /DATE OF HEARING : 22.02.2017 0 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.04.2017 / O R D E R PER D.S.SUNDER SINGH , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.12.2015 OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL-2, BANGALORE , IN F.NO.240/DRP- 2/BNG/2015-16 FOR THE AY 2011-12 AND RAISED THE FOL LOWING GROUNDS: ITA NO.1186/MDS/2016 & CO NO.179/MDS/2016 :- 2 -: GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE ORDER OF THE DRP IS CONTRARY TO THE LAW AND FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE DRP ERRED IN DIRECTING THE TPO/AO TO ALLOW WORK ING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE PREVAILING RATES AFTER VERIFICATION OF NECESSARY DETAILS. 2.1 THE DRP FAILED IN ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEES CONTENTI ON THAT THE COMPARABLE MARGIN SHOULD BE ADJUSTED FOR WORKING CAPITAL INTENSITIES VIS-A-VIS ASSESSEES MARGIN FOR THE REASON THAT THE ABOVE WOULD BE RELEVANT ONLY IN THE EVENT OF ASSESSEES WORKING CAPITAL BEING NEGATIVE. 2.2 HAVING REGARD TO THE HONBLE ITAT C BENCHS DECIS ION IN THE CASE OF MOBIS INDIA LTD. VS. DCIT IN ITA NO.2112/MDS/2011 WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO JUSTIFY THE ADJUSTMENTS THAT WERE REQUIRED TO BE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF NEGATIVE WORKING CAPITAL, THE DRP OUGHT HAVE UP HELD THE ACTION OF THE TPO/AO IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF ADJUSTMENT FOR WORKING CA PITAL ADJUSTMENT. 3. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE ADDUCED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE DRP MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESTORED. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED CROSS-OBJECTIONS AGAINST T HE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE WHICH IS NUMBERED AS 179/MDS/2016. 2.0 CONDONATION OF DELAY: THERE WAS DELAY OF 51 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER FILED AN AFFIDAVIT EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR DELAY AND REQUESTED FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. WE HE ARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND LD.AR DID NOT MAKE ANY OBJECTIONS FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. WE ARE CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATION OFFER ED BY THE REVENUE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE DELAY I S CONDONED. 3.0 BACKGROUND OF THE COMPANY : M/S.MYUNGHWA AUTOMOTIVE PRIVATE LIMITED IS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF M/S.MYUNGHWA INDUSTRIAL COMPANY LIMIT ED, SOUTH KOREA MYUNGHWA AUTOMOTIVE PVT LTD INCORPORATED AS P RIVATE LIMITED COMPANY UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, DURING SEPTEMBER 2 007. THE ITA NO.1186/MDS/2016 & CO NO.179/MDS/2016 :- 3 -: COMPANY IS HAVING ITS MANUFACTURING FACILITY IN SRI PERUMBADUR. THE COMPANY IS MAINLY ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF AUT OMOBILE PRODUCTS SUCH AS WATER PUMP ASSEMBLY AND OIL PUMP A SSEMBLY. THE COMPANY MAINLY CATERS TO ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT MAN UFACTURERS (OEMS) OF HYUNDAI MOTORS INDIA AND ITS ANCILLARY UNITS. 3.1 DETAILS OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS: THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED IN TO THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WITH THE AE AS UNDER: S.NO DESCRIPTION OF TRANSACTION QUANTUM OF TRANSACTION METHOD ADOPTED 1 IMPORT OF RAW MATERIAL 14,69,86,643 TRANSACTIONAL NET MARGIN METHOD 2 CAPITAL GOODS IMPORT 17,55,91,239 3 ROYALTY 38,55,441 TOTAL RS.32,64,33,323/- 3.2 FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS: THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING AND SELLING AND MARKETING FUNCTION IN INDIA. THE ASSETS EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ON 31/03/2011 ARE AS FO LLOWS: TYPES OF ASSETS AMOUNT(IN RS.) LEASEHOLD LAND 13,99,93,900 BUILDINGS 13,44,41,208 PLANT & MACHINERY 11,37,35,738 ELECTRICAL FITTINGS 2,86,06,070 VEHICLES 39,04,601 COMPUTERS 7,97,846 FURNITURE & FIXTURES 2 1,57,364 OFFICE EQUIPMENTS 10,22,340 TOTAL 42,46,59,067 ADD: CAPITAL CWIP 19,39,8 1,389 GRAND TOTAL 61,86,40,456 3.3. MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD (MAM): THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD ADOPTED TNMM AS MAM FOR TH E PURPOSE OF ALP DETERMINATION. THE PLI ADOPTED BY THE ASSESS EE IS OP/OI. ITA NO.1186/MDS/2016 & CO NO.179/MDS/2016 :- 4 -: THE NET MARGINS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS T ESTED AGAINST THE NET MARGINS OF THE SELECTED COMPARABLES. 3.4 COMPUTATION OF PLI (OP/OI) OF THE ASSESSEE COM PANY: THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD COMPUTED THE PLI WITH TH E FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENTS: DESCRIPTION AMOUNT IN INR SALES 332699046 EXCHANGE GAIN 1738615 OPERATING INCOME (A) 334437661 RAW MATERIAL COST 219324147 INCREASE/DECREASE IN STOCK 4647163 MANUFACTURING EXPENSES 52933112 PAYMENT OF BENEFITS TO EMPLOYEES 19387874 ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES 12375156 DEPRECIATION 21141655 OPERATING COST (B) 329809108 PROFIT BEFORE INTEREST AND TAX (PBIT) C = (A-B) 4628553 ADD: DEPRECIATION (D) 21141655 EBITA (PROFIT AFTER ADJUSTING DEPRECIATION) (E) 25770208 ADD: POWER RELATED ADJUSTMENT (G) 1760487 ADJUSTED OPERATING PROFIT ( F = C+D+E+F+G) 27530695 PROFIT ON SALES % G = (F/A*100) 8.23% ADD: ADJUSTMENT TOWARDS LONGER CREDIT TERM ON SUPPLIES RECEIVED AS COMPARED TO COMPARABLE COMPANIES 2.02% TOTAL ADJUSTED OPERATING MARGIN 10.25% THE TPO HAS REWORKED THE PLI AFTER EXCLUDING THE A DJUSTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS TP STUDY IN RESPECT OF DEPRECI ATION, POWER RELATED ADJUSTMENTS, WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENTS, RISK ADJU STMENTS AND FOREX GAIN RELATED ADJUSTMENTS AND THE PLI WORKED OUT TO 0.97% AS AGAINST THE ASSESSEES WORKING OF 10.25%. HENCE THE TPO MADE IN DEPENDENT SEARCH PROCESS AND SELECTED THE FINAL SET OF COMPARABLES A S UNDER: FINAL SET OF COMPARABLES: S.NO. NAME OF THE COMPANIES PLI (OP/OI) 1 KALYANI FORGE LTD. 5.55% 2 IMPERIAL AUTO INDUSTRIES LTD. 6.76% 3 PRICOL LTD. 2.87% 4 DYNAMATIC TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 10.7% 5 LUMAX AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS LTD. 6.95% 6 SUNDARAM FASTNERS LTD. 8.92% MEAN 7.0% ITA NO.1186/MDS/2016 & CO NO.179/MDS/2016 :- 5 -: 4.0 ONE OF THE COMPARABLES SELECTED BY THE TPO IS M/S. DYNAMATIC TECHNOLOGIES LTD. THE AVERAGE MEAN OF THE COMPARAB LES WORKED OUT TO 7.0%. THE TPO HAS ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE PLI OF COMPARABLES @ 7.0% SHOULD NOT BE ADOPTED AGAINST THE OPERATING MARGINS OF 0.97% OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AS SESSEE FILED ITS OBJECTIONS AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE TPO HAS RE-WORKED THE AVERAGE MEAN AND PLI OF COMPARABL ES AT 6.67% AND SUGGESTED FOR DOWNWARD ADJUSTMENT OF RS.85,84,772/- IN PURCHASES. THE AO ISSUED DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER AS PER TPOS SUGGE STION OF ALP AND AGAINST THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE HA S FILED THE OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE DRP. ONE OF THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BEFOR E THE DRP WAS THE SELECTION OF M/S.DYNAMATIC TECHNOLOGIES LTD., AS CO MPARABLE WHICH WAS REJECTED BY THE DRP. THE DRP HAS ISSUED THE DIRECT IONS TO THE AO TO ALLOW WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT AGAINST WHICH THE REVENU E HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE FILED CROSS-OBJ ECTIONS AGITATING VARIOUS ISSUES AND ONE OF THE GROUND IS OBJECTION FOR INCLU DING M/S.DYNAMATIC TECHNOLOGIES LTD., AS COMPARABLES. 5.0 WE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. IN PARA NO.5.1 OF THE DRP ORDER, THE DRP HAS DIRE CTED THE AO TO ALLOW WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT AT THE PREVAILING RATE AFTER VERIFICATION OF THE NECESSARY DETAILS. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE , WE EXTRACT THE RELEVANT PARAGRAPHS OF THE DRP ORDER: ITA NO.1186/MDS/2016 & CO NO.179/MDS/2016 :- 6 -: 5.1 THE TPO HAS REJECTED THE CLAIM OF ADJUSTMENT FO R WCA AS ASSESSEE DID NOT CONSIDER DEBTORS AND INVENTORIES IN ITS COMPUTATION. PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE CHENNAI ITAT IN CASE OF M/S.MOBIS INDIA LTD, THE TP O HAS REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED COMPUTATION OF WCA FOR THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE COMPARABLES BEFORE THIS PANEL. IT HAS ALSO CITED DE CISIONS IN CASE OF M/S.SUNLIFE INDIA SERVICE CENTRE PVT LTD, ITAT, DELHI AND M/S.EMERSON S PROCESS MANAGEMENT INDIA PVT LTD OF ITAT, MUMBAI IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. AS PER SEC.144C OF INCOME TAX ACT THE DRP HAS NO P OWER TO REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO AND IT HAS TO DETERMINE THE ADJUSTMENT ON ITS OWN. FOR READY REFERENCE, WE EXT RACT SEC.144(C) AS UNDER: REFERENCE TO DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL. 13 144C. (1) THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL, NOTWITHSTANDING AN YTHING TO THE CONTRARY CONTAINED IN THIS ACT, IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, FORWA RD A DRAFT OF THE PROPOSED ORDER OF ASSESSMENT (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO A S THE DRAFT ORDER) TO THE ELIGIBLE ASSESSEE IF HE PROPOSES TO MAKE, ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009, ANY VARIATION IN THE INCOME OR LOSS RETURNED WHICH IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF SUCH ASSESSEE. (2) ON RECEIPT OF THE DRAFT ORDER, THE ELIGIBLE ASS ESSEE SHALL, WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF THE RECEIPT BY HIM OF THE DRAFT ORDER, (A) FILE HIS ACCEPTANCE OF THE VARIATIONS TO THE ASSESS ING OFFICER; OR (B) FILE HIS OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, TO SUCH VARIATION WITH , (I) THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL; AND (II) THE ASSESSING OFFICER. (3) THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL COMPLETE THE ASSESS MENT ON THE BASIS OF THE DRAFT ORDER, IF (A) THE ASSESSEE INTIMATES TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE VARIATION; OR (B) NO OBJECTIONS ARE RECEIVED WITHIN THE PERIOD SPECIF IED IN SUB-SECTION (2). (4) THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL, NOTWITHSTANDING AN YTHING CONTAINED IN SECTION 153 14 [OR SECTION 153B ], PASS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SUB-SECTION (3) WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH, (A) THE ACCEPTANCE IS RECEIVED; OR (B) THE PERIOD OF FILING OF OBJECTIONS UNDER SUB-SECTIO N (2) EXPIRES. (5) THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL SHALL, IN A CASE W HERE ANY OBJECTION IS RECEIVED UNDER SUB- SECTION (2), ISSUE SUCH DIRECTIONS, AS IT THINKS FI T, FOR THE GUIDANCE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ENABLE HIM TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT. (6) THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL SHALL ISSUE THE DI RECTIONS REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (5), AFTER CONSIDERING THE FOLLOWING, NAMELY: (A) DRAFT ORDER; (B) OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE; (C) EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE; (D) REPORT, IF ANY, OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, VALUATION OFFICER OR TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER OR ANY OTHER AUTHORITY; (E) RECORDS RELATING TO THE DRAFT ORDER; (F) EVIDENCE COLLECTED BY, OR CAUSED TO BE COLLECTED BY , IT; AND (G) RESULT OF ANY ENQUIRY MADE BY, OR CAUSED TO BE MADE BY, IT. ITA NO.1186/MDS/2016 & CO NO.179/MDS/2016 :- 7 -: (7) THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL MAY, BEFORE ISSUIN G ANY DIRECTIONS REFERRED TO IN SUB- SECTION (5), (A) MAKE SUCH FURTHER ENQUIRY, AS IT THINKS FIT; OR (B) CAUSE ANY FURTHER ENQUIRY TO BE MADE BY ANY INCOME- TAX AUTHORITY AND REPORT THE RESULT OF THE SAME TO IT. (8) THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL MAY CONFIRM, REDUC E OR ENHANCE THE VARIATIONS PROPOSED IN THE DRAFT ORDER SO, HOWEVER, THAT IT SHALL NOT S ET ASIDE ANY PROPOSED VARIATION OR ISSUE ANY DIRECTION UNDER SUB-SECTION (5) FOR FURTHER ENQ UIRY AND PASSING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 15 [EXPLANATION.FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS, IT IS HERE BY DECLARED THAT THE POWER OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL TO ENHANCE THE VARIATION S HALL INCLUDE AND SHALL BE DEEMED ALWAYS TO HAVE INCLUDED THE POWER TO CONSIDER ANY MATTER A RISING OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO THE DRAFT ORDER, NOTWITHSTA NDING THAT SUCH MATTER WAS RAISED OR NOT BY THE ELIGIBLE ASSESSEE.] 6.0 SINCE THE DRP HAS NO POWER TO REMIT THE MATTER BAC K TO THE FILE OF THE AO/TPO, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT T HE ISSUE SHOULD GO BACK TO THE FILE OF DRP TO WORK OUT THE CORRECT AMO UNT OF WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT AND ISSUE NECESSARY DIRECTIONS TO THE AO /TPO. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET-ASIDE THE ISSUE AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF DRP AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICA L PURPOSES. 7.0 THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS FLED BY THE ASSESSEE ON VARIO US ISSUES INCLUDING THE SELECTION OF COMPARABLE COMPANY M/S.DYNAMATIC TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 7.1 IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE, FOR THE AY 2010-11 IN ITA NO.658/MDS/2015 OF THIS TRIBUNAL, THE TRIBUNAL DIRE CTED THE AO/TPO TO SELECT ONLY AUTOMOBILE SEGMENT OF M/S.DYNAMATIC TEC HNOLOGIES LTD. AS COMPARABLE OR ANY OTHER SUITABLE COMPANY WHOSE ACTI VITIES AND CHARACTERISTICS ARE IDENTICAL AND SIMILAR TO THAT O F THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. FOR READY REFERENCE, WE EXTRACT THE RELEVANT PARAGR APHS OF THE ITAT ORDERS: ITA NO.1186/MDS/2016 & CO NO.179/MDS/2016 :- 8 -: 6. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE O THER HAND ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY PER USED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LEARNED A UTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, WE FIND MERIT IN THE SAME BECAUSE COMPARABLE COMPANIES SHOULD HAV E IDENTICAL OR SIMILAR ACTIVITIES AND CHARACTERISTIC OF SIMILAR QUALITIES, SIZE AND NATURE . THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ONLY ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY OF AUTOMOBILE PRODUCT S SUCH AS WATER PUMP ASSEMBLY AND OIL PUMP ASSEMBLY MEANT FOR PASSENGER CARS. IN THESE CI RCUMSTANCES, ONLY THOSE COMPANIES WHICH ARE OPERATING IN THE AUTOMOBILE SECTOR MANUFA CTURING SIMILAR KIND OF PRODUCTS ARE TO BE TAKEN AS COMPARABLES. IN THE RELEVANT CASE BEFO RE US, THE REVENUE HAS SELECTED M/S. DYNAMATIC TECHNOLOGIES WHICH IS ENGAGED IN DIVERSIF IED ACTIVITIES SUCH AS, AUTOMOBILE SECTOR, AEROSPACE SECTOR, WIND FORM SECTOR AND HYDR AULIC / SECURITY APPLICATIONS SECTOR. IN SUCH SITUATION, THE CONSOLIDATED OPERATING PROFIT O F M/S. DYNAMATIC TECHNOLOGIES CANNOT BE TAKEN AS COMPARABLES BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY I S ONLY OPERATING IN THE AUTOMOBILE SECTOR MANUFACTURING SPARE PARTS SUCH AS WATER PUMP ASSEMBLY AND OIL PUMP ASSEMBLY WHILE AS M/S. DYNAMATIC TECHNOLOGIES HAS VARIOUS OT HER SEGMENTS. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT ONLY THAT SEGMENT WHICH RELATE S TO AUTOMOBILE SECTOR OF M/S. DYNAMATIC TECHNOLOGIES SHOULD BE TAKEN AS COMPARABL ES AT THE MOST OR SOME OTHER SUITABLE COMPARABLE COMPANIES MAY BE TAKEN AS COMPA RABLES. FOR THE ABOVE REASONS, WE REMIT BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED AS SESSING OFFICER IN ORDER TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE LEARNED TPO AND FURTHER DIRECT THE LE ARNED TPO TO EITHER SELECT THE AUTOMOBILE SEGMENT OF M/S. DYNAMATIC TECHNOLOGIES A S COMPARABLES OR SELECT SOME OTHER SUITABLE COMPARABLE COMPANY WHOSE ACTIVITIES AND CH ARACTERISTICS ARE IDENTICAL AND SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THEREAFTER DETE RMINE THE ALP WITH REGARD TO THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGL Y. 7.2 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUN AL SUPRA WE DIRECT THE AO/TPO TO TAKE AUTOMOBILE SEGMENT OF M/S.DYNAMA TIC TECHNOLOGIES LTD., AS COMPARABLE OR ANY OTHER COMPANY WHOSE PROF ILE IS COMPARABLE WITH THAT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND RE-WORK THE A LP. THE AO/TPO IS FREE TO SELECT ANY COMPARABLE. ACCORDINGLY, THE EN TIRE APPEAL IN CROSS- OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE AO/TPO TO RE-WORK THE ALP. 8.0 THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED F OR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.1186/MDS/2016 & CO NO.179/MDS/2016 :- 9 -: 9.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND THE C ROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH APRIL, 2017, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ' . . $ ) (D.S.SUNDER SINGH) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED: 12 TH APRIL, 2017. TLN 0 .$6 76 /COPY TO: 1. - /APPELLANT 4. 8 /CIT 2. ./- /RESPONDENT 5. 6 . /DR 3. 8 ( ) /CIT(A) 6. * /GF