Polycom (United Kingdo) Ltd.- India Branch Office, Gurgaon V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 1293/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6714 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 7 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I1
• Next Hearing Date: 31-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 06-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUBHAKANT SAHU
• Keywords: Related party transaction; Transfer pricing; International transaction
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI I-1 B ENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEM BER ITA NO. 1293/DEL/2014 [A.Y 2009-10] POLYCOM [UNITED KINGDOM] LTD VS. THE D.C.I .T. INDIA BRANCH OFFICE CIRCLE 2(1) 3 RD FLOOR, TOWER C, BUILDING NO. 10 [INTT. T AXATION] PHASE II, DLF CYBER CITY NEW D ELHI GURGAON, HARYANA PAN: AADCO 2347 K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NAGESHWAR RAO, ADV DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI SUBHA KANT S AHU, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 15.10.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.10.2019 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS PREFERRED AGAINST T HE ORDER DATED 23.01.2014 FRAMED U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT']. 2 2. THE GRIEVANCES OF THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER: 1. THE LEARNED TPO / AO / DRP HAVE ERRED IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF INR 21,864,889 TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF T HE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION P ERTAINING TO PROVISION OF MARKETING AND SALES SUPPORT SERVICE S BY THE APPELLANT TO ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE (AE) (HEREI NAFTER REFERRED TO AS IMPUGNED TRANSACTION). 2. THE LEARNED TPO / AO / DRP HAVE ERRED IN NOT ACC EPTING THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS UNDERTAKEN BY THE APPELLANT I N ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND MODIFYING THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS FOR DETERMINATION OF ARMS LENGTH PRICE (ALP) OF THE IMPUGNED INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION TO HOLD THAT THE SAME IS NOT AT ARMS LENGTH THE LEARNED TPO / AO / DRP HAVE ERRED IN: NOT ACCEPTING THE USE OF MULTIPLE YEAR DATA, AS AD OPTED BY THE APPELLANT IN ITS TRANSFER PRICING (TP) DOCUME NTATION; AND DETERMINING THE ARMS LENGTH MARGINS / PRICES USIN G DATA PERTAINING ONLY TO FINANCIAL YEAR (FY) 2008-09 WH ICH WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF COMPLY ING WITH THE INDIAN TP DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS. 4. THE LEARNED TPO / AO / DRP HAVE ERRED IN ADOPTIN G A SEPARATE BENCHMARKING APPROACH BY: 3 A. BIFURCATING THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTION INTO TWO SE PARATE TRANSACTIONS/ACTIVITIES; NAMELY 'MARKETING SUPPORT SERVICES AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES'; AND B. APPLICATION OF INAPPROPRIATE KEYWORDS FOR SEARC HING COMPARABLE COMPANIES. 6. THE LEARNED TPO / AO / DRP HAVE ERRED IN REJECTI NG CERTAIN COMPARABLE COMPANIES SELECTED BY THE APPELL ANT BY APPLYING INAPPROPRIATE COMPARABILITY CRITERIA SUCH AS : A. TURNOVER LESS THAN INR 1 CRORE; B. EMPLOYEE COST LESSER THAN 25 PERCENT OF TOTAL COST ; C. DIMINISHING REVENUE; AND D. DIFFERENT ACCOUNTING YEAR 6. THE LEARNED TPO / AO / DRP HAVE ERRED IN ERRONEOUSLY REJECTING THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES SELE CTED BY THE APPELLANT AND PROPOSING HIS OWN SET OF COMPA RABLES FOR THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTION ON AN AD-HOC BASIS, TH EREBY RESORTING TO CHERRY PICKING OF COMPARABLES TO DETER MINE ALP FOR THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTION. 7. THE LEARNED TPO / AO / DRP HAVE ERRED IN PASS ING AN ORDER WHICH HAS COMPUTATIONAL ERRORS IN THE MARG IN OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES USED IN DETERMINATION OF ARMS LENGTH MARGIN FOR THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTION. 4 8. THE LEARNED TPO / AO / DRP HAVE ERRED IN NOT MAKI NG SUITABLE ADJUSTMENTS TO ACCOUNT FOR DIFFERENCES IN THE RISK PROFILE OF THE APPELLANT VIS-A-VIS THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES. 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT PO LYCOM GROUP IS HEADQUARTERED IN CALIFORNIA, U.S.A. THIS GROUP DELI VERS END-TO-END MEDIA COLLABORATIVE APPLICATIONS FOR VOICE, VIDEO, DATA AND THE WORLD WIDE WEB THROUGH ITS 2600 EMPLOYEES. THE GROUP CONT INUES TO BE A MAJOR PLAYER IN UNIFIED COLLABORATION SOLUTIONS WOR LD-WIDE. THE GROUP'S VIDEO SOLUTIONS PROVIDE AN INTEGRATED, END- TO-END CAPABILITY, ENABLING GEOGRAPHICALLY DISPERSED INDIVIDUALS TO CO MMUNICATE. ITS VIDEO SOLUTIONS INCLUDE HIGH DEFINITION, TELEPRESEN CE, HD AND STANDARD DEFINITION GROUP VIDEO CONFERENCING, HD AN D STANDARD DEFINITION DESKTOP VIDEO CONFERENCING, VOICE AND VI DEO MEDIA SERVERS, AND NETWORK MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS. THE VOIC E COMMUNICATIONS PRODUCTS ENHANCE BUSINESS COMMUNICAT IONS IN CONFERENCE ROOMS, DESKTOPS AND MOBILE APPLICATIONS. 5 4. POLYCOM BRANCH OFFICE [ASSESSEE] WAS ESTABLISHED AS A BRANCH OFFICE OF POLYCOM LIMITED (UNITED KINGDOM) TO RENDE R MARKETING AND POST-SALES SUPPORT SERVICES TO POLYCOM GROUP. POLYC OM BO COMMENCED ITS OPERATIONS ON 14.11.2003. 5. THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WITH ITS AES DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION ARE SUMMARISED IN THE TABLE AS UNDER: NO. NATURE OF TRANSACTION METHOD VALUE OF TRANSACTION 1 PROVISION OF MARKETING AND SALES SUPPORT SERVICES TNMM 179,221,762 / - 2 PURCHASE OF DEMONSTRATION EQUIPMENTS TNMM 17,129,962 / - 3 REIM BURSEMENT OF EXPENSES TO AES TNMM 13,110,127 / - 4 REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES BY AES BNR 5,116,322 / - 6. THE ENTIRE QUARREL BEFORE US IN RELATION TO THE PROVISION OF MARKETING AND SALES SUPPORT SERVICES. IN THIS SEGM ENT, POLYCOM OFFERS PROFESSIONAL AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES TO ASSIST END -USERS IN IMPLEMENTING AND MANAGING POLYCOM GROUPS VIDEO CON FERENCING, VOICE COMMUNICATION AND NETWORK SYSTEMS PRODUCTS, A S MENTIONED ELSEWHERE. THESE SERVICES ARE RENDERED DIRECTLY BY POLYCOM GROUP 6 THROUGH ITS CHANNEL PARTNERS. IT ALSO OFFERS INSTAL LATION AND IMPLEMENTATION SERVICES AND A RANGE OF TRAINING OFF ERINGS. 7. FROM THE ABOVE CHART, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACT ION OF PROVISION OF MARKET AND SALES SUPPORT SERVICES AMOUNTING TO RS. 17,92,21,762/-. THE SAID TRANSACTION WAS BENCH MARKED USING TRANSAC TIONAL NET MARGIN METHOD [TNMM] AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD WITH R ETURN ON OPERATING COST AS THE PROFIT LEVEL INDICATOR. 8. IN TP STUDY REPORT, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN MARGI N OF 9.54% ON COST AND FOR BENCHMARKING OF THIS TRANSACTION, THE ASSESSEE HAS USED A SET OF 15 COMPARABLES. THE AVERAGE MARGIN OF THESE COMPARABLES IS 8.57%, AND SINCE THE MARGIN OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SHO WN AT 9.54%, TRANSACTION WAS SHOWN TO BE AT ARMS LENGTH. 9. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY T HE ASSESSEE, THE TPO ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO JUSTIFY THE S ELECTION OF COMPARABLES FOR BENCH MARKING THE INTERNATIONAL TRA NSACTIONS REPRESENTING MARKET SUPPORT SERVICES PROVIDED TO AE S. THE TPO FURTHER OBJECTED TO THE FILTERS USED BY THE ASSESSE E AND AFTER DETAILED 7 DISCUSSION AND DELIBERATIONS, THE TPO CAME TO THE C ONCLUSION THAT THE MARKET SUPPORT SERVICES AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVI CES HAVE TO BE TREATED AS SEGREGATE SEGMENT AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE TPO CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING 9 SET OF COMPARABLES IN RESPECT OF MARKET SUPPORT SERVICES: 1. APITCO LIMITED 2. BASIZ FUND SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED 3. GLOBAL PROCUREMENT CONSULTANTS LIMITED 4. ORIENT ENGINEERING & COMMERCIAL CO. LIMITED 5. TSR DARASHAW PRIVATE LIMITED 6. KILLICK AGENCIES & MARKETING LIMITED 7. CAMEO CORPORATE SERVICES LIMITED 8. CYBER MEDIA RESEARCH LIMITED (IDC INDIA LIMITED) 9. HCCA BUSINESS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ARITHMETIC MEAN (AS PER TPO) (%) - 24.15% 10. AND CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING SET OF COMPARABLES IN RESPECT OF TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES: 1. ENGINEERING INDIA LIMITED 2. WAPCOS LIMITED 3. RITES LIMITED ARITHMETIC MEAN (AS PER TPO) (%) - 26.38% 8 11. THE ASSESSEE RAISED OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE DRP A ND OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE SUMMARILY DISMISSED BY THE DRP AS UNDER: 8.2 COMPARABLES COMPANIES SELECTED BY THE TPO IN T HE FINAL SET OF COMPARABLE LIST AND OBJECTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN MARKETING & SALES SUPPORT SERVICES. 8.2.1 APITCO LTD.: THIS COMPANY IS ALSO IN THE TECH NICAL CONSULTANCY SERVICE. THEREFORE, THE SAME SHOULD BE TAKEN AS COMPARABLE. 8.2.2 BASIZ FUND SERVICE PVT. LTD.: THIS COMPANY P ROVIDES ACCOUNTING SERVICES. THE TPO HAS CORRECTLY IDENTIFI ED THIS COMPANY AS A COMPARABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. 8.2.3 CAMEO CORPORATE SERVICES LTD.: THIS COMPANY I S ALSO A SERVICE PROVIDER LIKE THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IT S HOULD BE RETAINED IN THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. 8.2.4 GLOBAL PROCUREMENT CONSULTANTS LTD.: THIS COM PANY IS ALSO IN THE SIMILAR LINE OF BUSINESS AS THAT OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IT SHOULD BE RETAINED IN THE LIST OF COM PARABLES. 8.2.5 HCCA BUSINESS SERVICES PVT. LTD.: THIS COMPA NY PROVIDES PAYROLL SUPPORTING SERVICE. THEREFORE, IT IS BROADL Y COMPARABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. 9 8.2.6 KILLICK AGENCIES & MARKETING LTD.: THIS COMPA NY PROVIDES MARKETING SUPPORT SERVICE. THEREFORE, IT SHOULD BE RETAIN IN THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. 8.2.7 ORIENT ENGINEERING & COMMERCIAL COMPANY LTD. : THESE COMPANIES PROVIDE TECHNICAL SERVICES, AMONG OTHER T HINGS, TO ITS CLIENTS. THESE ACTIVITIES ARE COMPARABLE TO THE ACT IVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE. 8.2.8 TSR DARASHAW: THIS COMPANY IS ALSO IN THE BUS INESS OF PAYROLL, RECORD MANAGEMENT AND REGISTRAR AND TRANSF ER AGENT FOR ITS CLIENTS. THESE ACTIVITIES ARE COMPARABLE OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE. 8.3 THE FOLLOWING COMPARABLES COMPANIES REJECTED/ A CCEPTED BY THE TPO IN TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES ARE DISCUS SED IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS. 8.3.1 ARCHOHM CONSULTS PVT. LTD.: CHARACTERISTICS O F THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE COMPANY ARE NOT COMPARABLE , ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A COM PARABLE COMPANY. 8.3.2 ENGINEERS INDIA LTD., L&T RAMBOLL CONSULTING ENGINEERS LTD., RITES LTD. AND ZIPPER TRADING ENTERPRISES LTD .: THESE COMPARABLES ARE IN THE SIMILAR LINE OF ACTIVI TY AND PROVIDING TECHNICAL SERVICES IN THE MARKET. THEREFO RE, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO HOLD THAT THEY ARE TOTALLY NOT COMPARAB LE TO THE 10 CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, IT IS ALSO NOTICED T HAT THESE 4 COMPANIES ARE IN THE SIMILAR LINE OF BUSINESS OF TH OSE COMPARABLES CHOSEN BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF. THEREFOR E, DRP HOLDS THAT THEY SHOULD BE RETAINED IN THE LIST OF C OMPARABLES. 8.3.3 MAHINDRA ENGINEERING: THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTE D OUT THAT THIS COMPANY DOES NOT SATISFY ALL THE FILTERS ADOPT ED BY TPO. HOWEVER, TPO HAS STATED THAT IT PASSES ALL THE QUAN TITATIVE FILTERS AND IT IS ALSO FUNCTIONALLY COMPARABLE. THE REFORE, THIS COMPANY SHOULD BE RETAINED IN THE LIST OF FINAL COM PARABLES. 8.3.4 IBI CHEMATUR ENGINEERING AND CONSULTANCY LTD. : THIS COMPANY IS AN ENGINEERING SERVICE PROVIDER. THE BRO AD CONTOURS OF THE ACTIVITY OF THIS COMPANY ARE SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THIS COMPANY SHOULD BE RETAINE D IN THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. 8.3.5 MAHINDRA CONSULTING ENGINEERS LTD.: THIS COMP ANY IS PROVIDING CONSULTANCY SERVICES ON VARIOUS SUBJECTS. THE ACTIVITIES OF THIS COMPANY ARE BROADLY SIMILAR TO T HAT OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THIS COMPANY SHOULD BE RETAINE D. 8.3.6 SEMAC LTD.: THIS COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN DESIGN CONSULTANCY, PROJECT MANAGEMENT, ETC. THE ACTIVITIE S OF THE COMPANY ARE CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY COMPARABLE TO THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THIS COMPANY SHOULD BE RETAINED IN THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. 8.3.7 TCE CONSULTING ENGINEERS LTD.: THE ASSESSEE H AS GIVEN A LONG LIST OF ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED BY THIS COMPANY. HOWEVER, 11 WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS THE BROAD FUNCTIONAL SIMILARIT Y BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE COMPARABLE CHOSEN. THE TPO HAS CONSIDERED THIS AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THI S COMPANY IS BROADLY COMPARABLE SINCE IT IS PROVIDING ENGINEERIN G CONSULTANCY SERVICES. DRP AGREES WITH THE TPO. 8.3.8 WAPCOS LTD.: THIS IS A COMPANY WHICH IS COMPA RABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE OBJECTION OF THE TAXPAYER IS MAIN LY ON VERTICALS OF THE COMPANY. WAPCOS IS INTER ALIA INVO LVED IN OFFERING MARKET INTELLIGENCE AND FEASIBILITY STUDIE S WHICH IS BROADLY AKIN TO THE FUNCTIONAL PROFILE OF THE TAXPA YER. THE OBJECTION OF THE TAXPAYER TO THE USE OF WAPCOS AS A COMPARABLE ON THE GROUND OF ITS RECEIVING GRANT IN AID FROM TH E GOVERNMENT IS ALSO NOT ACCEPTABLE AS THE COMPARABLE HAS BEEN G ETTING GRANT TO ONLY CARRY OUR CERTAIN PROJECTS AND SAME HAS NOT EFFECT ITS OVERALL PROFITABILITY. THEREFORE, THIS COMPANY SHOU LD BE RETAINED IN THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. 12. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. 13. AT THE VERY OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE STATED THAT THOUGH DURING THE TP ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HE HAS STRONGLY OBJECTED TO THE SEGREGATION OF MARKET SUPPORT SERVICES AND T ECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES, BUT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ONLY HE WOULD NOT SERIOUSLY OBJECT TO THE SAID SEGREGATION. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED THAT HE IS OBJECTING FOR IN CLUSION OF 5 12 COMPARABLES IN MARKETING SUPPORT SERVICES AND 3 COM PARABLES IN TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES. 14. PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE LOWER A UTHORITIES, THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY STATED THAT ALL THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN DULY CONSIDERED BY THE DRP AND, THEREFORE, FINAL SE T OF COMPARABLES TAKEN BY THE TPO SHOULD BE UPHELD. 15. WE HAVE GIVEN THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE O RDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE BUSINESS PROFILE OF THE ASS ESSEE HAS BEEN DISCUSSED ELSEWHERE. WE WILL NOW CONSIDER THE COMP ARABLES UNDER MARKETING SUPPORT SERVICES, WHICH THE LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE HAS OBJECTED FOR INCLUSION. I. APITCO LIMITED 16. THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THIS COMPANY IS PLACED AT PAGES 1 TO 25 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THIS COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN PROV IDING HIGH END TECHNICAL CONSULTANCY RELATED TO ASSET RECONSTRUCTI ON AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES, MICRO ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT, SKILL DEVELOPMENT, ENTREPRENEURSHIP DEVELOPMENT, TOURISM & RESEARCH 13 STUDY, CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT AMONG OTHER ACTIVITIES. A CURSORY LOOK AT THE BUSINESS PROFILE OF APITCO LIMITED CLEARLY S UGGESTS THAT IT IS ENGAGED IN DIVERSIFIED FUNCTIONS WHICH DO NOT MATCH WITH THE FUNCTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. FOR THIS VERY REASON, T HE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S PHILIP MORRIS SERVICES IND IA SA IN ITA NO. 827/DEL/2014 HAS EXCLUDED THIS COMPANY FROM THE FIN AL SET OF COMPARABLES. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE CO-ORDIN ATE BENCH READ A UNDER: 9. ASSESSEE OBJECTED THE INCLUDED OF THIS COMPANY ON THE GROUND THAT THIS COMPANY PROVIDES HIGH-END SERVICES , DIVERSIFIED ACTIVITIES WHICH INCLUDES ASSET RECONST RUCTION AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES, PROJECTS RELATED SERVICES, LIK E A ENTERPRISES DEVELOPMENT, INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING AND ALLOTMENT, RESEARCH STUDIES AND TOURISM, SKILLED AL LOTMENT, AND ADORNMENT MANAGEMENT, AND ENTREPRENEUR DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING, CLUSTER ALLOTMENT, ENERGY-RELATED SERVICE S, EMERGING AREAS ETC. ATTENTION OF THE LD. TPO WAS BROUGHT TO THE REVENUE BREAKUP OF VARIOUS SERVICES WITH REFERENCE TO THE A NNUAL REPORT OF THE COMPANY. 10. LD. TPO, HOWEVER, HELD THAT THE REVENUE BREAKUP OF SERVICES GIVEN CONSTITUTE MUCH LOWER PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL SERVICES AND MOST OF THE SERVICES RENDERED BY APITC O LTD., OR IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS SERVICES AND PREDOMINANTLY A PITCO LTD., IS A COMPANY PROVIDING VARIOUS SUPPORT SERVICES FOR ALLOTMENT OF TOURISM AND INDUSTRY, AS SUCH THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE. LD. TPO FURTHER HELD THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS 14 EXPERIENCED EMPLOYEES IN THE FIELD OF ENGINEERING, MARKETING, MANAGEMENT AND THEREFORE THE EMPLOYEE PROFILE OF AS SESSEE WITH THE APITCO LTD., IS COMPARABLE. 11. IT IS THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. AR THAT THE PROFI LE OF THE COMPANY AS NARRATED BY THE LD. TPO ITSELF SUGGESTS THE NON- COMPATIBILITY OF APITCO LTD., WITH THE ASSESSEE INA SMUCH AS THE ASSESSEE IS PROVIDING ONLY SIMPLE SUPPORT SERVICES WHEREAS THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE APITCO LTD., ARE VERY DIVE RSE AND HIGH- END ONES RENDERING APITCO LTD., NON-COMPARABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. 12. IT IS SUBMITTED BY LD. DR THAT AS RIGHTLY RECOR DED BY THE LD. TPO, MOST OF THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE APITCO LT D., ARE IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS SERVICES AND PREDOMINANTLY A PITCO LTD., IS A COMPANY PROVIDING VARIOUS SUPPORT SERVICES FOR ALLOTMENT OF TOURISM AND INDUSTRY. FURTHER, IT COULD BE SEEN THA T THE MARGINS OF APITCO LTD., ARE QUITE CONSISTENT AND IN THE RANGE OF 37% TO 49% FROM FY 2005-06/02/2009-10 IN THIS ERA O F VOLATILE BUSINESS CONDITIONS, FOREX FLUCTUATIONS ETC. BASING ON THESE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY LD. TPO, LD. DR JUSTIFIES THE INCLUSION OF THIS COMPANY IN THE SET OF COMPARABLES. 13. AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THIS COMPANY, IS COMPANY IS ONE OF THE 18 TCOS WAS FORMED BY THE KEY NATIONAL LEVEL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS IN ASSOCIATION WITH ST ATE-LEVEL INSTITUTIONS AND BANKS, AND ACCORDINGLY BEING A GOV ERNMENT ENTERPRISE APITCO LTD., WAS ESTABLISHED TO PROVIDE TECHNICAL SERVICES TO OTHER GOVERNMENT COMPANIES AND BODY COR PORATE. FURTHER THIS COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING SERVIC ES SUCH AS ASSET RECONSTRUCTION AND MANAGEMENT, CLUSTERED ALLO TMENT FOR MEGA FOOTMARKS, AND ENVIRONMENT SERVICES, ENERGY-RE LATED 15 SERVICES, INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, ENERGY AUDIT ETC. AND UNDOUBTEDLY THIS COMPANY IS A HIGH-E ND CONSULTANCY SERVICE PROVIDER. THE ANNUAL REPORT FUR THER REVEALS THAT THIS COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING HIGH-END TECHNICAL SERVICES ALSO. 14. LD. AR BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THEY APITCO L TD., WAS REJECTED BY A CATENA OF DECISIONS RENDERED BY DIFFE RENT BENCHES OF THIS TRIBUNAL INCLUDING A COORDINATE BENCH OF TH IS TRIBUNAL IN CIENA INDIA (P) LTD VS. DCIT IN ITA NO. 2948 AND 3224/DEL/2013 FOLLOWING WHICH IN AVAYA INDIA PRIVAT E LIMITED VERSUS DCIT IN ITA NO. 146/DEL/2013. HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE NATION REPORTED IN KOBELCO CRANES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 802/DEL/2016. IN INTERNATIONAL SOS S ERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS DCIT ITA NO. 1631/DEL/2014 T HIS COMPANY WAS EXCLUDED ON ACCOUNT OF BEING HUNDRED PERCENT GO VERNMENT ORGANISATION AND THE APPEAL AGAINST THIS DECISION O F THE TRIBUNAL WAS DISMISSED BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH CO URT.. FURTHER IT COULD BE SEEN IN VESTEGAARD ASIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSES DCIT IN ITA NO. 6670/DEL/2015 AND H & M MOURITZ INDIA PR IVATE LIMITED VERSES DCIT IN ITA 282/BANKG/2015 IT IS HEL D THAT THE APITCO LTD., IS NOT A GOOD COMPARABLE WITH ANY COMP ANY RENDERING BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES ON THE GROUND T HAT THIS COMPANY IS A PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING AND ITS OPERATIONS ARE MAINLY BASED THE ON THE POLICY REQUIREMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT. 15. FURTHER RELIANCE IS PLACED BY THE COUNSEL ON TH E DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN TYSOKKRUPP IND USTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSES ACIT IN ITA NO. 6460/M UM/2012 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THIS COMPANY BEING A GOVER NMENT 16 ENTERPRISES IS NOT COMPARABLE WITH A PRIVATE BUSINE SS SERVICE PROVIDER BECAUSE IN CASE OF GOVERNMENT ENTERPRISES PROFIT MOTIVE IS NOT IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATION, AND GOVERNM ENT COMPANIES WORK FOR OTHER PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKINGS AND IN THAT SENSE THE RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS ARE MUCH MORE THAN THE FILTER OF 25%. THIS DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL WA S UPHELD BY THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN ITA NUMBER 20/02/2 018 OF 2013. 16. THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ALL THE DECISIONS REFERRED TO ABOVE HOLD GOOD FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO I NASMUCH AS THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE COMPANY IN THE FIELD OF P ROVIDING BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES. WE, THEREFORE, WHILE RES PECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE ABOVE DECISION S HOLD THAT APITCO LTD., IS NOT A GOOD COMPARABLE WITH THE ASSE SSEE AND IS ACCORDINGLY LIABLE TO BE EXCLUDED. WE, THEREFORE, D IRECTLY LD. TPO TO EXCLUDE THIS COMPANY FROM THE FINALIST OF CO MPARABLES TO BENCHMARK THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION RELATING TO THE MARKET SUPPORT SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS AES. 17. CONSIDERING THE BUSINESS PROFILE OF THE APPELLA NT-COMPANY, VIS A VIS THAT OF APTICO LIMITED, IN THE LIGHT OF THE D ECISION OF THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH, WE DIRECT THE TPO TO EXCLUDE THIS C OMPANY FROM THE FINAL SET OF COMPARABLES. 17 II. BASIZ FUND SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED 18. THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THIS COMPANY IS PLACED AT PAGES 26 TO 70 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THIS COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN PROV IDING NAV SUPPORT SERVICES AND CONSULTING SUPPORT SERVICES IN THE NATURE OF FUND ACCOUNTING SERVICES TO ADMINISTRATORS. INSURAN CE COMPANIES, PRIME BROKERS, PRIVATE EQUITY FUNDS, HEDGE FUNDS ET C. THE COMPANY HAS APPLIED FOR COPYRIGHTING ITS FINANCIAL STATEMEN T PROPRIETARY PROCESSES. 19. A PERUSAL OF THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THI S COMPANY SHOWS THAT UNDER THE HEAD REVENUE FROM OPERATIONS, THIS C OMPANY HAS SHOWN REVENUE FROM OPERATIONS, REVENUE FROM INTERNA TIONAL REVENUE, PREPARATION OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, LIQUI DITY MONITORING SERVICES, NAV ACCOUNTING FOR INTERNATIONAL FUNDS, C ONSULTING CHARGES, US TAXATION AND DOMESTIC REVENUE IS SHOWN FROM DOMESTIC PMS ACCOUNTING WHEREAS THE APPELLANT COMPANY IS PRO VIDING ONLY SIMPLE SUPPORT SERVICES. 18 20. FOR THIS VERY REASON, THIS COMPANY WAS EXCLUDED BY THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF MICROSOFT CORPORATION INDIA PVT LIMITED IN ITA NO. 1206/DEL/2014. THE SAID ORDER O F THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN ITA NO. 874/2019. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT READ AS UNDER: THE APPELLANT HAS PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPEAL TO ASSAIL THE ORDER DATED 22.06.2018 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL, INTER ALIA, IN ITA NO. 1206/DEL/2014 PREFERRED BY THE REVE NUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE SAID APPEAL HAD BE EN PREFERRED TO ASSAIL THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DRP, WH EREBY THE DRP HAD DELETED M/S BASIZ FUND SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLE ENTERPRISES. TH E ORDER OF THE DRP WAS PREMISED ON ITS EARLIER ORDER IN REL ATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THE DRP HELD THAT M/S BASIZ FUND SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED WAS NOT APPROPRIATE F OR THE PURPOSE OF COMPARISON, ON ACCOUNT OF FUNCTIONAL DISSIMILARITY. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THE FINDING OF THE DRP THAT THE COMPANY M/S BASIZ FUND SERVICES PRIVATE LI MITED IS FUNCTIONALLY DISSIMILAR TO THE ASSESSEE, IS FOUN DED ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE SAID COMPANY IS INVOLVED IN FUND ACCOUNTING SERVICES; IT POSSESSES SIGNIFICANT INTAN GIBLE ASSETS, AND; IT HAD DIFFERENT EMPLOYEES PROFILE, WH ICH RESULTED IN SIGNIFICANT GROWTH AT 57.61% AND EARNIN G OF PROFITS AT 46.75% AT SUPERNORMAL LEVEL. EVEN IF THE SUPERNORMAL LEVEL OF PROFIT AT 46.75% WERE NOT TO B E 19 CONSIDERED AS A REASON TO TREAT THE SAID ENTERPRISE S AS NOT COMPARABLE, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE TRIBUNAL CONC URRED WITH THE VIEW OF THE DRP ON FUNCTIONAL DISSIMILARIT Y. AFORESAID BEING THE POSITION, IN OUR VIEW, NO QUEST ION OF LAW ARISES IN THE PRESENT APPEAL SINCE CONCURRENT F INDINGS OF FACT HAVE BEEN RETURNED BY THE DRP AND THE TRIBU NAL. THE SAME IS, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 21. CONSIDERING THE BUSINESS PROFILE OF THE APPELLA NT-COMPANY, VIS A VIS THAT OF BASIZ FUND SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED, I N THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH, WE DIRECT THE TPO TO EXCLUDE THIS COMPANY FR OM THE FINAL SET OF COMPARABLES. III. GLOBAL PROCUREMENT CONSULTANTS LIMITED 22. THIS COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN PROCUREMENT CONSULTA NCY SERVICES. THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THIS COMPANY IS PLACED AT PAGE S 71 TO 120 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THIS COMPANY SUGG ESTS THAT IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED PRIMARILY TO PROVIDE COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT SERVICES REQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS OR THEIR PROJECT EXECUTION AGENCIES TO CARRY OUT PROCUREMENT IN A TI ME BOUND ENERGY- 20 EFFICIENT MANNER WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES OF INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS. THE TRAIN ING AND CAPACITY BUILDING IN THE INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS OF PROCUREMEN T MANAGEMENT FORMS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THESE ACTIVITIES, BESIDES WHICH , THE CONSORTIUM BASE OF GLOBAL PROCUREMENT CONSULTANTS LTD., ENSURES THA T ALL MAJOR SECTORS OF THE ECONOMY INCLUDING HEALTH, EDUCATION, URBAN A ND RURAL DEVELOPMENT ARE COVERED. THIS COMPANY HAS GAINED D IVERSIFIED PROJECT EXPERIENCE AND TECHNICAL EXPERTISE IN HANDL ING PROCUREMENT AND RELATED PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES FOR A LAR GE NUMBER OF DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS FUNDED BY WORLD BANK, DFID, UN ICEF, AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK AND OTHERS. 23. FURTHER, THIS COMPANY ACTS AS THE CLIENT'S REPR ESENTATIVE IN TAKING ON THE TOTAL RESPONSIBILITY OF PROCUREMENT, BY PROV IDING A COMPREHENSIVE RANGE OF PROCUREMENT RELATED ADVISORY SERVICES AND INTER-ALLIED ACTIVITIES FOR PROJECTS IN INDIA AND A BROAD. 24. THE CONSULTANCY SERVICES OF THIS COMPANY ENCOMP ASS PREPARING AND REVIEWING TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS, ESTIMATION OF COSTS, SELECTION OF VENDORS, INSPECTION AND EXPEDITING, QUALITY CONT ROL AND TIME MANAGEMENT. THE SECTORS CATERED BY THIS COMPANY IN CLUDES POWER, WATER RESOURCES, TRANSPORTATION, INDUSTRIES AND OTH ER SECTORS INCLUDING 21 HEALTH, EDUCATION, ENVIRONMENT, FINANCIAL, LNFOTECH , COMPUTER SYSTEMS AND MODELLING AND ASSET VALUATION. 25. FOR THESE VERY REASONS, THIS COMPANY WAS EXCLUD ED BY THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF TEREX EQUIPMENT PVT L IMITED IN ITA NO. 1882/DEL/2014. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE HO N'BLE HIGH COURT READ AS UNDER: 27. THIS COMPARABLE HAS BEEN INCLUDED ON THE GROUN D THAT IT IS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING PROCUREMENT SUPPORT SERVICES. SINCE PROCUREMENT SUPPORT SERVICES ARE IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS SERVICES, IT IS A CORRECT COMPAR ABLE. 28. THE NATURE OF BUSINESS IN THE ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.03.2008 CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE BUSINE SS DESCRIPTION OF THE COMPANY IS THE COMPANY IS PRIMA RILY INTO REVIEW OF PROCUREMENT ACTIVITIES FOR THE TWO L ARGE BANK FINANCED PROJECTS IN INDONESIA WHEREAS THE ASS ESSEE HAS A SOURCING TEAM WHICH PROVIDES MARKET SUPPORT SERVICES TO BENFORD LIMITED, UK IN RELATION TO SOUR CING THE COMPONENTS FROM VENDORS/ SUPPLIERS IN INDIA. IN OU R CONSIDERED OPINION, THIS COMPANY IS FUNCTIONALLY DI FFERENT AS IT IS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING FULL FLEDGED PROCUREM ENT AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES. MOREOVER, T HIS COMPANY WAS TAKEN AS COMPARABLE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011- 12 BY THE TPO BUT HAS BEEN REJECTED BY THE DRP AS 22 COMPARABLE. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS, WE DIRECT FOR EXCLUSION OF THIS COMPARABLE. 26. CONSIDERING THE BUSINESS PROFILE OF THE APPELLA NT-COMPANY, VIS A VIS THAT OF GLOBAL PROCUREMENT CONSULTANTS LIMITE D, IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH, WE DIRECT TH E TPO TO EXCLUDE THIS COMPANY FROM THE FINAL SET OF COMPARABLES. IV ORIENT ENGINEERING & COMMERCIAL CO. LIMITED 27. THIS COMPANY IS ENGAGED INTO THE BUSINESS OF CO MMISSION AGENT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES. THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THIS C OMPANY IS PLACED AT PAGES 148 TO 197 OF THE PAPER BOOK. FROM ITS AN NUAL REPORT, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THIS COMPANY HAS SHOWN ITS TYPES OF BU SINESS AS BESIDES SALE OF PAINTS, THE COMPANY IS ALSO FUNCTIONING AS COMMISSION AGENTS AND PROVIDING TECHNICAL SERVICES TO ITS CLIENTS. NO SEGMENTAL REPORTING IS FOUND. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE BUS INESS PROFILE OF THIS COMPANY WITH THAT OF THE APPELLANT-COMPANY, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THIS IS NOT A GOOD COMPARABLE AND ACCORDINGLY, DIRECT THE TPO TO EXCLUDE THIS COMPANY FROM THE FIN AL SET OF COMPARABLES. 23 5. TSR DARASHAW PRIVATE LIMITED 28. THIS COMPANY IS AN ESTABLISHED BUSINESS PROCESS OUTSOURCING (BPO) SERVICE PROVIDER, ENGAGED IN PROVIDING SERVIC ES IN RELATION TO RECORDS MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY, REGISTRY AND SHARE TRA NSFER, PAYROLL & TRUST FUND ACTIVITY. THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THIS COMP ANY IS PLACED AT PAGES 198 TO 228 OF THE PAPER BOOK. SURPRISINGLY, THIS COMPANY WAS REJECTED BY THE TPO IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IN A SSESSEES OWN CASE ON ACCOUNT OF BEING FUNCTIONALLY DIFFERENT. THE ONL Y REASON FOR INCLUDING THIS COMPANY IS THAT THE TPO IS OF THE OP INION THAT RECORDS MANAGEMENT AND PAY ROLL SERVICE PROVIDED BY THIS CO MPANY ARE ALSO BUSINESS SERVICES, HENCE, BROADLY COMPARABLE WITH T HE APPELLANT. WE ARE NOT CONVINCED WITH THE LOGIC GIVEN BY THE TPO. THE ASSESSEE BEING A SIMPLE SUPPORT SERVICE PROVIDER, CANNOT BE CONSID ERED AS A COMPARABLE WITH THIS COMPANY. 29. A PERUSAL OF THE SCHEDULE FORMING PART OF THE F INANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THIS COMPANY HAS SHOWN JOB WOR K CHARGES UNDER THE HEAD MANAGEMENT EXPENSES AND DATA PROCESSING CHARGES ALSO. THIS ITSELF SHOWS THAT THIS COMPANY IS AN ESTABLISH ED BPO. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THEREFORE, THIS COMPANY CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS 24 A GOOD COMPARABLE BEING FUNCTIONALLY DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE ASSESSEE. WE, ACCORDINGLY DIRECT THE TPO TO EXCLUD E THIS COMPANY FROM THE FINAL SET OF COMPARABLES. 30. WE WILL NOW ADDRESS TO THE FOLLOWING COMPANIES OBJECTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES: I) ENGINEERING INDIA LIMITED II) WAPCOS LIMITED III) RITES LIMITED. 31. FIRST OF ALL, THESE COMPANIES ARE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKINGS AND THE CO-ORDINATE BENCHES ACROSS HAV E BEEN TAKING A CONSISTENT VIEW IN EXCLUDING GOVERNMENT COMPANIES F ROM THE FINAL SET OF COMPARABLES. TO NAME A FEW, THYSSUN KRUPP INDUS TRIES ITA NO. 640/MUM/2012, BOEING INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION ITA NO. 1127/DEL/2015, AT&T COMMUNICATION INDIA PVT. LIMITE D, ITA NO. 1016/DEL/2016 AND ELI LILY & CO. IN ITA NO. 6819/D EL/2014. 25 32. MOREOVER, ENGINEERING INDIA LIMITED IS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING ENGINEERING RELATED TECHNICAL SERVICES FOR PETROLEU M REFINING AND OTHER INDUSTRIAL PROJECTS. THE SERVICES PROVIDED B Y THIS COMPANY INCLUDE FEASIBILITY STUDIES, PROJECT MANAGEMENT, PL ANNING AND SCHEDULING COST ENGINEERING PROCESS AND EQUIPMENT B USINESS, AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT. SIMILARLY, WAPCOS IS ALSO ENGAGED IN PROVIDING ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL CONSULTANCY SER VICES IN WATER RESOURCES, POWER AND INFRASTRUCTURE SECTOR. RITES LIMITED IS PROVIDING SERVICES IN ALL FACETS OF TRANSPORTATION. RITES ALSO PROVIDES SERVICES IN THE FIELD OF PRE-PROJECT MANAGEMENT FOR RAILWAY TRACKS AND ELECTRIFICATION TOGETHER WITH TRAFFIC AND SOFTWARE CONSULTANCY ASSIGNMENT TO MALAYSIAN RAILWAYS. 33. SO, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT NOT ONLY THESE ARE GOVE RNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKINGS, BUT THEIR FUNCTIONAL PROFILES IS DIFF ERENT FROM THAT OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY WHICH IS A SIMPLE SERVICE PRO VIDER. CONSIDERING ETH PROFILE OF THE ASSESSEE VIS A VIS T HESE THREE COMPARABLE COMPANIES, WE DIRECT THE TPO TO EXCLUDE ALL THESE THREE COMPARABLES FROM THE FINAL SET OF COMPARABLES, SINC E THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE EMPHASIZED FOR EXCLUSION OF THE AF ORESAID COMPARABLES ONLY. 26 34. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN I TA NO. 1293/DEL/2014 IS ALLOWED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.10. 2019. SD/- SD/- [ KULDIP SINGH] [N.K. BILLAIYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 30 TH OCTOBER, 2019 VL/ COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) ASST. REGISTRAR, 5. DR ITAT, NEW DELHI 27 DATE OF DICTATION DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER