M/s. Apotex Research Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore V. DCIT, Bangalore

ITA 1286/BANG/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8541 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 06-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 22-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; International transaction
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 92C; 271(1)(b); 139; 92; 92B; 48; 22

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A NOS.1286/BANG/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 APOTEX RESEARCH PRIVATE LTD., NO.1, BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA 4 TH PHASE, BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE (P.O.), BANGALORE 560 099. PAN: AAECA 2791B VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(1), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI CHAVALI NARAYANAN, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.K. JHA, CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 06.12.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.02.2017 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF AO PASSED IN CONSEQUENCE TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP INTER ALIA ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, APOTEX RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED RESPECTFULLY CRAVES LEAVE TO PREFER AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY DEPUTY COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME-TAX -11 (1) (' AO') IN PURSUANCE OF THE DIRE CTIONS ISSUED BY DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL ('DRP'), BANGALORE DATED 3 1 AUGUST 2010 IT(TP)A NO.1286/BANG/2010 PAGE 2 OF 10 UNDER SECTION 253 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ('ACT ') ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED AO AND DIRECTION OF THE HO N'BLE DRP ARE BASED ON INCORRECT INTERPRETATION OF LAW AND TH EREFORE ARE BAD IN LAW. 2. THE LEARNED AO HAS ERRED IN ASSESSING THE TOTAL INC OME AT NIL AS AGAINST RETURNED LOSS OF RS.4,81,22,829/- COMPUT ED BY THE APPELLANT. . 3. THE LEARNED AO/ TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER ('TPO') ER RED IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 47,407,690 TO THE TOTAL I NCOME OF THE APPELLANT ON ACCOUNT OF ADJUSTMENT IN THE ARM'S LEN GTH PRICE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION ENTERED BY THE APPELL ANT WITH ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES. 4. THE LEARNED AO / TPO ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE ECON OMIC ANALYSIS UNDERTAKEN BY THE APPELLANT WITHOUT PROPER JUSTIFICATION AND CONDUCTING A FRESH ECONOMIC ANALY SIS FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE IN CONNECTI ON WITH THE IMPUGNED INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION. 5. THE LEARNED AO / TPO ERRED BY VIOLATING THE PRINCIP LE OF NATURAL JUSTICE IN NOT PROVIDING ANY OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD AND IN NOT EVEN ISSUING A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE APPELLA NT JUST PRIOR TO PASSING THE TRANSFER PRICING ORDER. THE HON'BLE DRP, IN TURN, HAS ERRED IN LAW IN CONCLUDING THAT THE INFIRMITY T HAT CREPT IN DUE TO THE LACK OF OPPORTUNITY IS CURED BY THE DRP PROV IDING THE NECESSARY OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT. 6. THE LEARNED AO / TPO ERRED IN DETERMINING THE ARM'S LENGTH MARGIN USING ONLY FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 DATA WHICH WAS NOT AVAILABLE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AT THE TIME OF COMPL YING WITH THE TRANSFER PRICING DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENT S. 7. THE LEARNED TPO ERRED IN CONDUCTING THE COMPARABLE SEARCH PROCESS USING ONLY THE PROWESS DATABASE, THEREBY DI SREGARDING THE ROBUSTNESS AND EXHAUSTIVENESS OF A SEARCH CONDU CTED ON BOTH PROWESS AND CAPITALINE DATABASES (TWO WIDELY RECOGN ISED DATABASES FOR OBTAINING PUBLICLY AVAILABLE FINANCIA L INFORMATION). THE HON'BLE DRP, IN TURN, HAS ERRED I N UPHOLDING IT(TP)A NO.1286/BANG/2010 PAGE 3 OF 10 THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED AO / TPO WITHOUT SPECIFIC ALLY ADDRESSING THIS CONTENTION. 8. THE LEARNED AO / TPO ERRED IN REJECTING CERTAIN COM PARABLE COMPANIES ON' ACCOUNT OF PERSISTENT OPERATING LOSSE S ON ONE HAND AND ACCEPTING CERTAIN SUPER PROFIT MAKING COMP ANIES ON THE OTHER HAND. 9. THE LEARNED AO / TPO ERRED IN REJECTING CERTAIN COM PANIES HAVING DIFFERENT ACCOUNTING YEAR (I.E. COMPANIES HA VING ACCOUNTING YEAR OTHER THAN MARCH 31 OR COMPANIES WH OSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS WERE FOR A PERIOD OTHER THAN 1 2 MONTHS). 10. THE LEARNED AO / TPO ERRED IN REJECTING CERTAIN COM PANIES FOR NOT HAVING FOREIGN EXCHANGE EARNINGS (AND IN SOME C ASES FOR HAVING FOREIGN EXCHANGE EARNINGS LESS THAN 25% OF T HE REVENUES). 11. THE LEARNED AO / TPO ERRED IN APPLYING 'SERVICE INC OME LESSER THAN RS. 1 CRORE AS A COMPARABILITY CRITERION IN TH E FRESH ECONOMIC ANALYSIS CONDUCTED BY THE LEARNED TPO. 12. THE LEARNED AO / TPO ERRED, IN ACCEPTING! REJECTING CERTAIN COMPANIES USING UNREASONABLE COMPARABILITY CRITERIA . 13. THE LEARNED AO / TPO ERRED, IN NOT MAKING SUITABLE ADJUSTMENTS TO ACCOUNT FOR DIFFERENCES IN THE WORKING CAPITAL O F THE APPELLANT VIS-A-VIS THE COMPARABLES. THE HON'BLE DR P, IN TURN, HAS ERRED BY OVERLOOKING THE APPELLANT'S OBJECTIONS ON THE SUBJECT AND IN CONCLUDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NO T INDICATED IN WHAT MANNER THE WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT HAS TO B E GIVEN OR IN WHAT WAY NOT GIVING THE WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTME NT HAS AFFECTED THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE. 14. THE LEARNED AO / TPO ERRED IN NOT MAKING SUITABLE A DJUSTMENTS TO ACCOUNT FOR DIFFERENCES IN THE RISK PROFILE OF T HE APPELLANT VIS- A-VIS THE COMPARABLES. 15. THE LEARNED AO/TPO ERRED IN COMPUTING THE ARMS LENG TH PRICE WITHOUT GIVING BENEFIT OF +/- 5 PERCENT UNDER THE P ROVISO TO SECTION 92C OF THE ACT. EACH OF THE GROUND IS REFERRED TO SEPARATELY, WHICH MAY KINDLY BE CONSIDERED INDEPENDENT AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF EAC H OTHER. IT(TP)A NO.1286/BANG/2010 PAGE 4 OF 10 THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND, VA RY, OMIT OR SUBSTITUTE ANY OF THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL A T ANY TIME BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, SO AS TO E NABLE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL TO DECIDE ON THE APPEAL IN ACCORDA NCE WITH THE LAW. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUNDS:- ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL 16. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GROUND NO. 7, THE LEARNED TPO/AO HAS ERRED IN LAW/FACTS BY SELECTING THE FOLLOWING COMPANIES AS COMPARABLES TO APPELLANT EVEN THOUGH THESE ARE FUNCTIONALLY DIFFERENT. ALPHA GEO INDIA LIMITED VIMTA LABS LIMITED CELESTIAL LABS LIMITED 17. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO. 7, THE LEARNED TPO/ AO HAS ERRED IN LAW/FACTS BY NOT OBJECTIVELY SELECTING THE FOLLOWING COMPANIES AS COMPARABLES TO APPELLANT EVEN THOUGH T HESE COMPANIES SATISFY THE COMPARABILITY CRITERIA, WHILE UNDERTAKING THE SEARCH PROCESS. CHOKSI LABORATORIES LTD NEEMAN MEDICAL INTERNATIONAL LTD RESEARCH SUPPORT INTERNATIONAL LTD TCG LIFESCIENCES LTD PFIZER LIMITED THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT DURING THE TRANSFER PRIC ING PROCEEDINGS FOR AY 2006-07, THE LEARNED TRANSFER PRICING OFFICE R ('TPO') IT(TP)A NO.1286/BANG/2010 PAGE 5 OF 10 ERRONEOUSLY DISREGARDED THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS UNDER TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT WITHOUT PROPER JUSTIFICATION AND CONDUCTE D A FRESH ECONOMIC ANALYSIS, WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, FOR DETERMINATION OF ARM'S LENGTH PRICE ('ALP') USING O NLY PROWESS DATABASE. IN THIS REGARD, THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THA T THE APPELLANT HAS UNDERTAKEN A FRESH ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ON PROWESS DAT ABASE INCLUDING OTHER WIDELY USED DATABASES (I.E. CAPITALINE NEO AN D ACE TP DATABASES) TO IDENTIFY COMPARABLE COMPANIES ENGAGED IN CONTRACT R&D SERVICES IN SUPPORT OF THE ARM'S LENGTH NATURE OF TRANSACTION WITH ITS AE AND ACCORDINGLY, HAS IDENTI FIED FIVE COMPARABLE COMPANIES. THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT SUBM ITS THAT THE LEARNED TPO HAS ERRED IN LAW/FACTS BY NOT CONSIDERI NG CERTAIN COMPANIES WHICH OTHERWISE COMPARABLE TO THE APPELLA NT AND GIVEN THIS, THE APPELLANT SHOULD BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO BENCHMARK THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTION USING THE FRESH SEARCH PROCESS. (DETAILED ECONOMIC ANALYSIS IS ENCLOSED AS ATTACHME NT 1) THE PETITIONER FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE ABOVE ADDIT IONAL GROUND IS BEING FILED BY WAY OF ABUNDANT CAUTION. THE ADDITIO NAL GROUND RAISE ISSUE WHICH IS FUNDAMENTAL TO THE APPEAL AND THE NO N-ADMISSION AND NON-ADJUDICATION OF THE SAME WOULD RESULT IN AN INC OMPLETE APPRECIATION AND ADJUDICATION OF THE MATTER. THE PE TITIONER SUBMITS THAT THE FAILURE TO RAISE THIS GROUND AT AN EARLIER STAGE 'IS NEITHER WILFUL NOR WANTON BUT DUE TO THE REASONS STATED ABO VE. NO PREJUDICE WOULD BE CAUSED TO THE RESPONDENT BY REASON OF THE ABOVE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS BEING ADMITTED AND ADJUDICATED A ND ACCORDINGLY THE BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE IS IN FAVOUR OF SUCH AN ORDER BEING PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL. THE PETITIONER STATES AND SUBMITS THAT THE ISSUES R AISED IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUND ABOVE ARE LEGAL ISSUES AND ARISE OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. RELIANCE IS BASED ON THE DEC ISIONS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF JUTE CORPORATIO N OF INDIA VS. CIT (187 ITR 688) AND NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPOR ATION VS CIT (229 ITR 383); DECISION OF FULL BENCH OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AHMADABAD ELECTRICITY CO. LTD. (199 ITR 351) AND DECISION OF CHANDIGARH SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. QUARK SYSTEMS (P.) LTD. (IT APPEAL NO 100 (CHD,) OF 2009). IN THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES THE PETITIONER PRAYS THA T THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL BE PLEASED TO: IT(TP)A NO.1286/BANG/2010 PAGE 6 OF 10 I. ADMIT AND ADJUDICATE THE ABOVE ADDITIONAL GROUN D, II. PASS ANY OTHER ORDER THAT MAY BE REQUIRED IN T HE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND RENDER JUSTICE. SINCE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RELATE TO THE TP ISSUE, WE ADJUDICATE THE SAME ALONG WITH THE GROUNDS RAISED ON MERITS ON THE TP I SSUE. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN CONTRACT PHARMACEUTIC AL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. DURING THE IMPUGNED FINANCIA L YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAD INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS AS PER SECTION 92B O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [THE ACT] AND THEREFORE, THE MATTER WAS REFERR ED TO TPO IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE ALP OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS . 4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE CONSOLIDATED CHART FIL ED BY HIM WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT IN THE TP STUDY, ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN 6 COMPARABLES AND ALL THE COMPARABLES WERE OUTRIGHTLY REJECTED BY THE TPO AND THE TPO HAS FINALLY TAKEN THE FOLLOWING 3 COMPARABLES: (1) ALPHA GEO INDIA LTD. (2) CELESTIAL LABS LTD. (3) VIMTA LABS LTD. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTEND ED THAT ALL THESE 3 COMPARABLES ARE FUNCTIONALLY DIFFERENT, THEREFORE T HEY CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS GOOD COMPARABLES FOR DETERMINATION OF THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE (ALP) OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS. IT(TP)A NO.1286/BANG/2010 PAGE 7 OF 10 6. WITH REGARD TO ALPHA GEO INDIA LTD., IT WAS CONT ENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS COMPARABLE DOES NOT MEET THE BASIC COMPARABILITY CRITERION OF FUNCTIONAL SIMILARITY WHICH RENDERS SE ISMIC SERVICES AND DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY PHARMACEUTICAL R&D SERVICES. IT ALS O FAILS ATLEAST 25% EARNING FROM EXPORTS FILTER APPLIED BY THE TPO HIM SELF. THE PROFILE OF ALPHA GEO INDIA LTD. IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 386 OF TH E COMPILATION OF THE ASSESSEE, ACCORDING TO WHICH THE COMPANY PROVIDES T HE FOLLOWING SERVICES:- - DESIGNING AND PREPLANNING OF 2D AND 3D SERVICES - SEISMIC DATA ACQUISITION IN 2D AND 3D - SEISMIC DATA PROCESSING/REPROCESSING/SPECIAL PRO CESSING - SEISMIC DATA INTERPRETATION - GENERATION, EVALUATION AND RANKING OF PROSPECTUS - RESERVOIR ANALYSIS - TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYS WITH GPS/RTK - TAPE TRANSCRIPTION - DIGITISATION OF HARD COPIES OF MAPS, SEISMIC SECT IONS AND WELL LOGS INTO CGM/SEGY/LAS FORMATS - THIRD PARTY QC FOR ACQUISITION AND PROCESSING 7. SINCE THE PROFILE OF THIS COMPANY IS NOT SIMILAR TO THE ASSESSEE'S PROFILE, THIS COMPANY CANNOT BE CALLED A GOOD COMPA RABLE FOR DETERMINING THE ALP. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS C OMPANY HAS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES ON ACCOUNT OF FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCE. IT(TP)A NO.1286/BANG/2010 PAGE 8 OF 10 8. WITH REGARD TO CELESTIAL LABS LTD., IT WAS CONTE NDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS COMPANY PROVIDES SOFTWARE PRODUC TS/SERVICES AND BIOINFORMATICS SERVICES. PROFILE OF THIS COMPANY I S AVAILABLE AT PAGE 470 OF COMPILATION, ACCORDING TO WHICH, THE COMPANY HAS DE VELOPED A DE NOVO DRUG DESIGN TOOL CELSUITE TO DRUG DISCOVERY IN FI NDING THE LEAD MOLECULES FOR DRUG DISCOVERY AND PROTECTED THE IPR BY FILING UNDER THE COPY RIGHT/PATENT ACT. AS PER TURNOVER GIVEN AT PAGE 48 6, THE TURNOVER FROM BIOINFORMATICS SERVICES, DATA WAREHOUSING AND MININ G, SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, PRODUCT AND SERVICES WAS 1022.18 LAKHS IN THE FY 2005-06. SINCE THIS COMPANY IS ALSO FUNCTIONALLY DIFFERENT F ROM THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, IT CAN ALSO NOT BE COMPARED AS A GOOD COMP ARABLE. ACCORDINGLY, THIS COMPANY HAS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE LIST OF CO MPARABLES. 9. SO FAR AS VIMTA LABS LTD. IS CONCERNED, IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THIS COMPANY IS ALSO FUNCTIONALLY DIFFERENT, A S IT FOCUSSES ON ELEMENT THAT EFFECT THE TOTAL HEALTH OF PEOPLE I.E., FOOD, WATER, DRUGS, CLINICAL DIAGNOSTICS AND ENVIRONMENT. HOWEVER, APOTEX (THE ASSESSEE) IS ENGAGED IN PRODUCT RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PERTAINI NG TO PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS ONLY. THIS COMPANY ALSO OFFERS WIDE SPECT RUM OF SERVICES AND IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER REVENUE/SEGMENTAL BREAK-UP, T HE COMPANY SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS A COMPARABLE. THE BIFURCATION OF REVENUE IS NOT AVAILABLE AND FOR REFERENCE, OUR ATTENTION WAS INVI TED TO PAGE 496, WHERE THE PROFILE AND SERVICES OF THIS COMPANY WAS MENTIO NED AND FROM A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THESE DETAILS OF PROFILE AND SERVICES, W E ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS IT(TP)A NO.1286/BANG/2010 PAGE 9 OF 10 COMPANY IS ALSO FUNCTIONALLY DIFFERENT, THEREFORE C ANNOT BE TAKEN AS A GOOD COMPARABLE. WE ACCORDINGLY DIRECT THE TPO/AO TO EX CLUDE THIS COMPANY FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. 10. NOW ALL THE 3 COMPARABLES WHICH HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE TPO AS COMPARABLES FOR DETERMINING THE ALP ARE NOT FOUND T O BE GOOD COMPARABLES AND ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE LIST OF COMPA RABLES, RESULTING NO COMPARABLE FOR DETERMINING THE ALP. UNDER THESE CI RCUMSTANCES, THE MATTER HAS TO GO BACK TO THE AO/TPO TO DETERMINE TH E ALP AFTER BRINGING SOME MORE COMPARABLES WHICH ARE SIMILAR TO THE PROF ILE OF ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS SUGGESTED THE FOLLOWING 5 COMP ARABLES WHICH ARE FUNCTIONALLY SIMILAR TO THE PROFILE OF THE ASSESSEE , ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE: (1) RESEARCH SUPPORT INTERNATIONAL LTD. (2) NEEMAN MEDICAL INTERNATIONAL LTD. (3) PFIZER LTD. (SEG.) (4) CHOKSI LABORATORIES LTD. (5) TATA LIFE SCIENCES LTD. 11. THOUGH ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THESE COMPAR ABLES ARE FUNCTIONALLY SIMILAR AND CAN BE CALLED TO BE GOOD C OMPARABLES, BUT IT REQUIRES A PROPER VERIFICATION BY THE TPO. ACCORD INGLY, WE RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE AO/TPO TO EXAMINE THESE COMPARABLES A ND IF THEY ARE FOUND TO BE GOOD COMPARABLES, THEY CAN BE CONSIDERED FOR DETERMINING THE ALP OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS. THE TPO IS ALSO AT LIBERTY TO SEARCH MORE IT(TP)A NO.1286/BANG/2010 PAGE 10 OF 10 COMPARABLES WHICH ARE SIMILAR TO ASSESSEE'S PROFILE IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE ALP OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS. 12. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 22 ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017. SD/- SD/- ( A.K. GARODIA ) (SUNIL KUMAR YA DAV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDIC IAL MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 22 ND FEBRUARY, 2017. /D ESAI S MURTHY / COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE.