Degania Medical Devices Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon V. DCIT, Gurgaon

ITA 1254/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5809 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 04-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY I BARA
• Assessee Lawyers: ROHIT TIWARI SH SHOBHIT TIWARI
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction; Retrospective amendment; Question of law; Working capital adjustments
• Section: 10B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: I-1, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1254/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR. 2010-11 M/S DEGANIA MEDICAL DEVICES PVT. LTD., PLOT NO.251, SECTOR-6, IMT MANESAR, GURGAON. PAN: AACCD0262A VS . DY.CIT CIRCLE 1(1) GURGAON. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SH. ROHIT TIWARI, ADVOCATE SH. SHOBHIT TIWARI, ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT BY SH. SANJAY I BARA, CIT, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 13.06.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27.06.2018 ORDER PER K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGIN G THE ORDER OF BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), GURGAON ( FOR SHORT LD. AO) DATED 12.01.2015 PASSED PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTI ONS GIVEN BY THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL II, NEW DELHI VIDE DIRECTIONS DATED 16.12.2014. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS A PRIVA TE LIMITED COMPANY, WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF IMPORT OF ASSEMBLY OF COMPONENT AND RE- EXPORT OF ASSEMBLED MEDICAL DISPOSABLE BALLOON CATHETE RS AS 100 % EXPORT ORIENTED UNIT ( EOU). IT IS PROVIDING A CAPTIVE PROD UCTION TO ITS PARENT COMPANY 2 AND ITS PARENT COMPANY HAS HELPED IN SETTING UP AND E XPANSION OF MANUFACTURING FACILITIES BY PROVIDING TECHNOLOGY, T RAINING, AND FINANCE ADMINISTRATIVE AND MARKETING SUPPORT TO THE ASSESSEE . ASSESSEE IMPORTS DIFFERENT SUB ASSEMBLE PARTS I.E. SEMI FINISHED BALLO ON CATHETERS WHICH INCLUDES THE PURGING OF HOLES IN THE SILICON TUBING AND FIXI NG WITH WALL, RINGS AND THE BALLOON. THE FINAL PRODUCTS ARE BEING SOLD ONLY TO O NE CUSTOMER I.E. THE AF OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 20.0.2010 DECLARING NIL INCOME AND DURING THE SCRUTINY, LEARNED AO FOUND THAT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10, THE A SSESSEE ENTERED THE FOLLOWING INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WITH THE AE: S.NO. NATURE OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS VALUE (IN INR) METHOD USED 1 SALE OF FINISHED GOODS 24,36,64,599 TNMM 2 PURCHASE OF RAW MATERIAL 16,94,63,209 TNMM 3 PURCHASE OF PLANT AND MACHINERY 45,54,101 CPM 4 INTEREST 14,84,727 CUP 4. ACCORDING TO THE REPORT OF THE TPO, THE ASSESSEE ADOPTED TNMM AS MAM AND OP/OC AS PLI FOR BENCHMARKING ITS TRANSACTION S OF PURCHASE OF RAW MATERIAL AND SALE OF FINISHED GOODS. THE ASSESSEE WORKED OUT MARGIN OF 8.32% IN CASE OF COMPARABLES AS AGAINST 5.66% IN ITS OWN CA SE. 5. LD. TPO, HOWEVER, REJECTED THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE ASSESSEE AND WORKED OUT MARGIN OF 9.648% IN CASE OF COMPARABLES S ELECTED BY HIM, RE- COMPUTED THE MARGIN OF THE ASSESSEE AT (-)1.0548% AFT ER TREATING FOREX GAIN AS NON-OPERATING INCLUDING THE HINDUSTAN SYRINGES & MED ICAL DEVICES P. LTD. AS COMPARABLE COMPANY, NOT ALLOWING THE RISK ADJUSTMENTS AND THE WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENTS THEREBY PROPOSING ADJUSTMENT OF RS. 2,63,78,207/- VIDE HIS 3 ORDER DATED 21.1.2014. THE AO INCORPORATED THIS ADD ITION IN HIS DRAFT ORDER DATED 21.3.2014. 6. WHEN THE ASSESSEE FILED OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE LEA RNED DRP, LEARNED DRP REFUSED TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE TPO AND CONFIRMED THE SAME. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL BY ON AS MANY AS 10 GROUNDS. GROUND NOS. 1,2 & 10 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE WHEREAS GROUND N OS.4,5,& 7 ARE NOT PRESSED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF THE ARGUMENT. THEREFORE, WHAT EFFECTIVELY REMAINS FOR ADJUDICATION ARE GROUND NOS. 3 RELATING TO THE TREATMENT OF THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE GAINS AS NON OPERATING; GROUN D NO.6 RELATES TO TRANSFER PRICING ISSUE; GROUND NO.8 CHALLENGES THE NON ALLOW ANCE OF RISK ADJUSTMENT AND GROUND NO.9 NOT ALLOWING THE WORKING CAPITAL AD JUSTMENTS. 7. FIRST COMING TO THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE FOREIGN E XCHANGE GAIN, LEARNED TPO CONSIDERED THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE GAIN OR LOSS AS N ON OPERATING IN NATURE BASING ON THE DEFINITIONS GIVEN IN SAFE HARBOUR RULE S FOR CALCULATING PLI, OPERATING REVENUE, COST AND OPERATING MARGINS. LEARN ED DRP IS ALSO OF THE SAME OPINION THAT THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE GAIN OR LOSS I S NON-OPERATING IN NATURE. 8. IT IS THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED AR THAT THE SAF E HARBOUR RULES ARE APPLICABLE ONLY FROM ASSTT. YEAR 2014-15, THAT TOO IN SPECIFIC CASES. HE SUBMITS THAT IT HAS NO RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT, AND FROM ASSTT. Y EAR 2007-08 TILL 2009-10, FOREIGN EXCHANGE GAIN OR LOSS IS TREATED AS OPERATING GAIN OR LOSS. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE LEARNED TPO HAD FOLLOWED THE SAME FOR T HE ASSTT. YEAR 2009-10. LEARNED AR RELIED UPON RULE 10TA WHERE IT SAYS THAT SU CH A DEFINITION IS PURPOSE OF THE RULE 10TA AND RULE 10B TO 10G ONLY, AND IT IS NOT A DEFINITION OF OPERATIONAL GAIN OR LOSS FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCOME-TA X RULES AS A WHOLE. 4 9. FURTHER, IT IS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT IN ASSESSE ES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.895/DEL/2014 BY ORDER DATED 7.11.2016, A COORDIN ATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION S IN THIS MATTER ARE ON REVENUE ACCOUNT AND THE HEDGING IS ALSO A RISK MITIGA TING EXERCISE TO REDUCE THE COST OF IMPORTS ONLY. AS SUCH, IT SHOULD BE CONSI DERED AS PART OF THE OPERATING PROFITS AND LOSSES OF THE COMPANY. FURTHER, RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION REPORTED IN THE CASE OF PCIT VS B C MANAGEM ENT PVT LTD. (2018) , 403 ITR 45 AND PCIT VS AMERIPRISE INDIA (P) LTD. (ITA NO .206 OF 2016 DATED 23.3.2016). 10. IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECED ING ASSESSMENT YEAR, A COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.895/DEL/ 2014 HELD AS FOLLOWS: WITH RESPECT TO THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATIONS HE SUBMITTED THAT THESE HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS NONOPERATIONAL ITEMS. HOWEV ER, THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSIDERED THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE LOSS OF RS. 1953939 /- AS OPERATIONAL AS THE ISSUE IS THOSE FOREIGN EXCHANGES FLUCTUATIONS HAVE ARISEN AND BECAUSE OF THE ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OR REALIZATION OF THE DEBTS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IF THE SAME IS EXCLUDED FROM THE PLI WORKING OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERED IT AS A NONOPERATIONAL THEN THE MARG IN OF THE COMPANY ALSO INCREASES SUBSTANTIALLY TO 1.20169%. IN ANY WAY HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS AN OPERATIONAL EXPENDITURE AND THEREFORE IN CASE OF TH E COMPARABLE COMPANIES ALSO, IT SHOULD BE INCLUDED WHILE WORKING OUT THE P LI OR IT SHOULD BE EXCLUDED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. WITH RESPECT TO THE FO REIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION, WHICH IS ON ACCOUNT OF THE FORWARD CON TRACT WITH RESPECT TO THE PURCHASE OF MATERIAL? WE FULLY AGREE WITH THE CONTEN TION OF THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE THAT THESE ARE THE FOREIG N EXCHANGE FLUCTUATIONS ON REVENUE ACCOUNT AND THE HEDGING IS ALSO A RISK M ITIGATING EXERCISE TO REDUCE THE COST OF IMPORTS AND ONLY. THEREFORE, IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE OPERATING PROFITS AND LOSSES OF THE COM PANIES. 11. IN PCIT VS B C MANAGEMENT PVT LTD. (2018) (SUPRA) , THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HELD AS FOLLOWS: 7. IN PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. AME RIPRISE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (ITA 206/2016) DECIDED ON 23.03.2016, THIS COURT HAD HELD THAT FOREIGN EXCHANGE GAINS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS IN RELATION TO 5 TRADING ITEMS AND EMANATING FROM INTERNATIONAL TRAN SACTIONS, DIRECT VALUE DERIVED FROM IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS NON- OPERATING LOSSES AND GAINS. 8. THIS COURT NOTICES THAT REVENUE SEEKS TO RELY ON THE SAFE HARBOUR RULES WHICH WERE NOTIFIED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY AND CA ME INTO FORCE IN 2013. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, GIVEN THAT THE PRESENT ASSE SSMENT PERIOD COVERS AY 2011-12, THE TREATMENT CANNOT BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THOSE RULES AS HELD IN 'PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. M/S CASHE DGE INDIA PVT. LTD., ITA 279/2016', DECIDED ON 04.05.2016. CONSEQUENTLY, NO QUESTION OF LAW ARISES. 12. WE, THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THIS ESTABLISHED LEGAL POSITION, HOLD THAT THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE OR LOSS IS OPERATIVE IN NATURE AND T HIS GROUND IS ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NO.3 IS ACCORDINGLY ALL OWED. 13. NOW COMING TO TRANSFER PRICING ISSUE, THE ASSESSE E IS CHALLENGING THE SELECTION OF HINDUSTAN SYRINGES & MEDICAL DEVICES PVT. LTD. AS A COMPARABLE TO THE ASSESSEE TO BENCHMARK THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTI ON. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AR THAT HINDUSTAN SYRINGES & MEDICAL DEVICES PVT. LTD. IS HAVING A TURNOVER OF RS.365.15 CRORES, NET OF EXCISE TURNOVER IS RS.352.86 CRORES WHEREAS THE ASSESSEES TURNOVER IS ONLY RS.24.37 CRORES. H E FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE CONSTITUTES AROUND 6. 5% OF THE TURNOVER OF THE HINDUSTAN SYRINGES & MEDICAL DEVICES PVT. LTD AN D ALSO THAT HINDUSTAN SYRINGES & MEDICAL DEVICES PVT. LTD PRODUCES ENTIRELY A DIFFERENT PRODUCT AND IT IS NOT A COMPARABLE COMPANY. 14. LEARNED AR FURTHER BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT I N ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2009-10 IN ITA NO.895/DEL/2014, THIS COMPANY IS RE JECTED. LEARNED DR DOES NOT DISPUTE THIS FACTUAL POSITION SUBMITTED BY T HE LEARNED AR. 15. VIDE PARA 19 IN ITA NO.895/DEL/2014, A COORDINA TE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL CONCLUDED THAT HAVING FOUND THAT HINDUSTAN SYRINGES & MEDICAL DEVICES PVT. LTD IS FUNCTIONAL DISSIMILARITY WITH THE ASSESSE, TI IS NOT OPEN FOR THE LEARNED 6 DRP TO INCLUDE THIS COMPANY FOR THE COMPARABLE. IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THERE IS A VAST DIFFERENCE IN THE ACTIVITIES OF THESE TWO COMPANIES. HINDUSTAN SYRINGES & MEDICAL DEVICES PVT. LTD HAS BEEN USING INT ANGIBLE ASSETS FOR WHICH ROYALTY IS PAID WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE IS MERELY A JOB WO RKER. IT IS FURTHER FOUND THAT HINDUSTAN SYRINGES & MEDICAL DEVICES PVT. LTD. IS ENGAGED IN TRADING ACTIVITIES WITHOUT ANY SEGMENTAL ACCOUNTS FOR DIFFERE NT ACTIVITIES WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY AN ASSEMBLER. 16. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTORS WELL BROUGHT OUT I N THE ORDER IN ITA NO.895/DEL/2014 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE ARE NO REASONS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW. WE ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT HINDUSTAN SYRINGES & MEDICAL D EVICES PVT. LTD. IS NOT A SUITABLE COMPARABLE. WE, THEREFORE, DIRECT THE LEAR NED TPO TO EXCLUDE THIS COMPANY FROM THE FINAL LIST OF THE COMPARABLES AND TO RECOMPUTE THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE FOR THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION. GRO UND NO.6 IS ANSWERED ACCORDINGLY. 17. GROUND NO.8 RELATES TO RISK ADJUSTMENT. LEARNED T PO HELD THAT THE RISK ADJUSTMENT AS A GENERAL RULE CANNOT BE ALLOWED UNLESS I T IS CLEARLY SHOWN THAT THE COMPARABLES HAD ACTUALLY UNDERTAKEN SUCH RISK AND HOW THE SAME MATERIAL AFFECTED THE MARGINS. LEARNED DRP HELD THAT THE AD JUSTMENT HAD FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCE, IF ANY, CAN BE MADE ONLY IT HOSE DIFFER ENCE CAN BE ASCERTAINED ACCURATELY AND THEIR IMPACT ON THE MARGINS CAN BE A SSESSED WITH REASONABLE ACCURACY. IT IS FURTHER FOUND THAT IN THE ABSENCE O F ANY INFORMATION, THE QUANTIFICATION OF THE ADJUSTMENT IS NOT PAYABLE. 18. IT IS THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED AR THAT THE F INDING OF THE EXACTLY SAME COMPANY IS NOT POSSIBLE AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE DIFF ERENCE, IF ANY, ADJUSTMENT SHOULD BE MADE WHILE COMPUTING THE MARGIN AND BRINGI NG THE ASSESSEE AND THE 7 COMPARABLE ON THE SAME LENGTHS. HE ALSO BROUGHT TO OU R NOTICE THAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2009-10, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED BY A COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL OBSE RVING THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE COMPARABLE COMPANY HAD ALSO T AKEN A RISK WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE IS A RISK FREE ENTITY, NO RISK ADJUSTMEN T WORKING WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE BENCH. ON THIS SCORE, THE BENCH REFUSED TO ENTERTAIN THAT GROUND RELATING TO RISK ADJUSTMENT. 19. HAVING GONE THROUGH THE ENTIRE RECORD, WE ARE A LSO OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT UNLESS THE ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF RISK IS QUANTIFIED AND WORKING IS GIVEN, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DIRECT THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW TO ALLOW THE RISK ADJUSTMENT AS PLEADED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR US EITHER TO CONSID ER AT THE TRIBUNAL LEVEL OR TO DIRECT THE AO TO CONSIDER THIS ASPECT. HENCE, GR OUND NO.8 OF THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 20. NOW COMING TO GROUND NO.9 WHICH RELATES TO THE W ORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT, LEARNED TPO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD N OT DEMONSTRATED AS TO HOW ITS WORKING CAPITAL COULD BE COMPARED WITH TH E WORKING CAPITAL OF THE COMPARABLES. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED TPO, THE ASSES SEE IS RECEIVING PAYMENT IN ADVANCE. ASSESSEE IS WORKING ON A COST PLUS MARK UP BASIS AND AS PER THE AGREEMENT, IT HAS TO BE REIMBURSED 4 TO 6% MARK UP ON TOTAL COST. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REIMBURSED ON COST PLUS MARK UP. SINC E THE AVERAGE OP/OC OF THE COMPARABLES IS AT 9.64%, WITHIN THE RANGE OF MARK UP OF 4 TO 6%, WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS SUPPOSED TO GET FROM THE AE, WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT IS NOT A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE IN THIS MATTER. 8 21. LEARNED DRP OBSERVED THAT IT IS ONLY WHEN THE HO SE DIFFERENT AND THE IMPACT CAN BE ASCERTAINED ACCURATELY THEN IT IS ONL Y POSSIBLE TO GRANT WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT. 22. IT IS ARGUED BEFORE US BY THE LEARNED AR THAT TH ERE ARE THREE CRITICAL ELEMENTS IN CAPITAL POLICY OF THE FIRM, VIZ., (A) L AGS BETWEEN THE TIME PRODUCTS ARE SOLD AND PAYMENTS ON THESE SALES ARE RECEIVED, WH ICH CREATE ACCOUNT RECEIVABLE; (B) LAGS BETWEEN THE TIME INPUTS ARE PURC HASED AND PAYMENTS ON THESE PURCHASES BECOME DUE, WHICH CREATE ACCOUNTS PAYA BLE; AND (C) LAGS IN THE PHYSICAL PROCESS OF PRODUCTION AND SALES, WHICH C REATE INVENTORIES. BY ALLOWING THE CUSTOMERS TO DEFER PAYMENT FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD, ANY COMPANY FOREGOES THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE ITS REVENUES IMMEDIATE LY AND TO EARN ADDITIONAL INCOME BY RE-INVESTING THESE REVENUES OVER THE DEFERR AL PERIOD. THE TIME ALLOWED FOR THE RECEIVABLES DIFFERS FROM COMPANY TO COMPANY. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NEGATIVE WORKING CAPIT AL INVESTMENT AND IT IS SAVING ON THE COST OF WORKING CAPITAL. ACCORDINGLY, IT WOULD TEND TO WORK AT LESSER MARGIN AS COMPARED TO THE INDEPENDENT COMPARAB LES. LEARNED AR FURTHER BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CA SE FOR AY 2009-10 IN ITA NO.895/DEL/14, A COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL A CCEPTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECTED THE LEARNED AO TO COMPU TE WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENTS ONLY ON THE OPENING AND CLOSING BALANCE O F THE WORKING CAPITAL EMPLOYED AT THE BEGINNING AND THE END OF THE YEAR. 23. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER DATED 7.11.2017 AND VIDE PARA 25, A COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL ACCEPTED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECTED THE AO TO COMPUTE THE WORKING CAPITAL ADJU STMENT ON THE OPENING AND CLOSING BALANCE OF THE WORKING CAPITAL EMPLOYS A T THE BEGINNING AND END OF THE YEAR. FACTS BEING SIMILAR, WHILE RESPECTFULLY FO LLOWING THE SAME, WE 9 REMAND THIS GROUND TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR COMPUTI NG THE WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT ONLY ON THE OPENING AND CLOSING BALANCE OF THE WORKING CAPITAL EMPLOYED AT THE BEGINNING AND END OF THE YEAR. GRO UND NO. 9 IS ANSWERED ACCORDINGLY. 24. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN PART FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH JUNE, 2018. SD/- SD/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (K.NARASIMHA CHARY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 27 TH JUNE, 2018 VJ COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI BENCHES DRAFT DICTATED ON 26.6.201 8 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 26.6.2018 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON DATE OF UPLOADING ON THE WEBSITE FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.