Brintons Carpets Asia Private Ltd., Pune V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 1312/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0363 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 17-04-2018
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 01-10-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRI
• Keywords: Business income; Transfer pricing; International transaction; Tax effect
• Section: 143(3); 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B , PUNE , , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM . / ITA NO. 1312 /P U N/201 5 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 0 - 11 BRINTONS CARPETS ASIA PVT. LTD., GAT NO.414/415/416, VILLAGE URAWADE, TAL MULSHI, PUNE 412108 . / APPELLANT PAN: A AAC B7059H VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE . / RESPONDENT . / ITA NO. 1 349 /P U N/201 5 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 0 - 11 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1) , PUNE . / APPELLANT VS. BRINTONS CARPETS ASIA PVT. LTD., GAT NO.414/415/416, VILLAGE URAWADE, TAL MULSHI, PUNE 412108 . / RESPONDENT PAN: AAACB7059H ASSESSEE BY : S HRI NIKHIL PATHAK REVENUE BY : S HRI PANKAJ GARG ITA NO. 1312 /P U N/20 1 5 ITA NO.1 349 /PUN/201 5 2 / DATE OF HEARING : 05.02.201 9 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29 . 0 3 .201 9 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J M : THE CROSS APPEAL S FILED BY ASSESSEE AND REVENUE ARE AGAINST ORDER OF CIT (A) - 13 , PUNE , DATED 23 . 0 7 .201 5 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 1 0 - 11 AGAINST ORDER P ASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . 2. THE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY ASSESSEE AND REVENUE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 1312 /PUN/201 5 HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND S OF APPEAL: - 1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER (AO') /COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX - 13 CCIT(A)') ERRED IN MAKING AN UPWARD ADJUSTMENT OF RS . 68,38,278 TO THE INCOM E OF THE APPELLANT. IN DOING SO, THE LD AO/ CIT(A) SPECIFICALLY ERRED IN: 1 . 1 CONDUCTING SELECTIVE FRESH ANALYSIS FOR IDENTIFYING AND ACCEPTING COMPANIES FUNCTIONALLY DISSIMILAR TO THAT OF THE APPELLANT'S BUSINESS OPERATIONS IN THE FINAL SET OF COMPANIES: 1 . 2 RE JECTING COMPANIES FUNCTIONALLY SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE APPELLANT'S BUSINESS OPERATIONS FROM FINAL SET OF COMPANIES; 1 . 3 DISREGARDING ADDITIONAL COMPARABLES PROVIDED BY THE APPELLANT ON THE BASIS OF A FRESH COMPARABLES SEARCH; 1 . 4 CONSIDERING THE SINGLE YEAR DATA FOR THE COMPARABLES I.E. DATA FOR FY 2010 - 11 ONLY AND DISREGARDING MULTIPLE YEAR DATA WHICH WAS CONSIDERED BY THE APPELLANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 10B(4) OF THE INCOME - TAX RULE, 1962 ('RULES'); AND ITA NO. 1312 /P U N/20 1 5 ITA NO.1 349 /PUN/201 5 3 1 . 5 PROVIDING AN ADHOC RISK ADJUSTMENT FOR DIFFERENTIAL RISKS ASSUMED BY THE APPELLANT WITHOUT FOLLOWING ANY SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY. 2) THE LD AO ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1 )( C) OF THE ACT. THE ABOVE GROUNDS ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 4. THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.1 349 /PUN/201 5 HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEAL) WAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ECLERX SERVICES LIMITED IS NOT A COMPARABLE COM PANY AS ASSESSEE IS KPO COMPANY AND ASSESSEE IS A BPO COMPANY ALTHOUGH HON'BLE ITAT MUMBAI SPL. BENCH IN THE CASE OF MERSK TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, HAS HELD THAT ITES SERVICES CANNOT BE FURTHER BIFURCATED AS BPO AND KPO SERVICES FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPAR ABILITY ANALYSIS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEAL) WAS ERRED IN HOLDING THE SAFE HARBOUR RULES HAS ALSO BIFURCATED KPO AND BPO SERVICES AND ACCORDINGLY ECLERX SERVICES LIMITED IS NOT A COMPAR ABLE COMPANY. THE SAFE HARBOUR RULES ARE FRAMED BY THE CBDT VIDE CIRCULAR DTD. 18 - 9 - 2013 AND THEY CANNOT BE APPLIED IN THE PRESENT CASE INVOLVING A.Y. 2010 - 11. 3. FOR THESE AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS AS MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE ORDER OF THE LE ARNED CIT(A) MAY BE VACATED AND THAT OF ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 5. FIRST, WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY AN UPWARD ADJUSTMENT MADE OF 68,38,278/ - IN ITES SEGMENT. 6. BRIEFLY, IN THE FACTS OF THE CAS E, THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF 4,01,65,040/ - . THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND EXPORT OF MACHINE MADE WOOLEN/NYLON CARPETS. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD ENT ERED INTO VARIOUS INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WITH ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES AGGREGATING TO 1,07,50,60,149/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE REFERENCE UNDER SECTION 92CA(1) OF THE ACT TO THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO) TO DETERMINE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS. THE TPO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE ITA NO. 1312 /P U N/20 1 5 ITA NO.1 349 /PUN/201 5 4 DETAILS IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTIONS UNDERTAKEN. THE TPO HAS ACCEPTED FIRST SEGMENT OF MANUFACTURE OF CARPETS AND NO ADJUSTMENT HAS BEEN PROPOSED IN THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE OF SAID INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS. HOWEVER, THE TPO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO EXPORT OF CARPETS TO ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES , T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DONE BENCHMARKING PROPERLY UNDER THE SAID SEGMENT. THE ASSESSEE HAD APPLIED TNMM METHOD AS M OST APPROPRIATE METHOD AND HAD SELECTED 15 COMPANIES WITH THREE YEARS DATA AS COMPARABLES. THE TPO REJECTED 12 CONCERNS SELECTED BY ASSESSEE AS NOT COMPARABLE AND ADDED SIX NEW CONCERNS AS COMPARABLES. SO, IN FINAL ANALYSIS, THE TPO ADOPTED 9 COMPARABLES WITH PLI AFTER RISK ADJUSTMENT OF 2% AND AVERAGE MARGINS OF COMPARABLES WORKED OUT TO 29.73%. THE ASSESSEE HAD ADOPTED OP/OC AS ITS PLI AND HAD DECLARED MARGINS OF 11.72%. THE TPO THUS, MADE AN UPWARD ADJUSTMENT OF 84,40,837/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE, AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 7. THE CIT(A) DIRECTED EXCLUSION OF TWO CONCERNS FROM FINAL LIST OF COMPARABLES I.E. INFOSYS BPO LTD . AND ECLERX SERVICES LTD. AND BALANCE 7 CONCERNS WERE HELD TO BE FUNCTIONALLY COMPARABLE BY THE CIT(A). 8. THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST EXCLUSION OF THE CONCERNS, WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS POINTED OUT THAT TWO CONCERNS I.E. ACCENTIA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. AND INFORMED TECHNOLOGIES LTD. NEED TO BE EXCLUDED FROM FINAL SET OF COMPARABLES. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT PLI OF JEEVAN SOFTECH LTD. (SEGMENT) NEEDS CORRECTION. THE THIRD ISSUE WHICH IS RAISED BY ASSESSEE IS ALLOWABILITY O F RISK ADJUSTMENT @ 20% FOLLOWING THE RATIO ITA NO. 1312 /P U N/20 1 5 ITA NO.1 349 /PUN/201 5 5 LAID DOWN BY THE DELHI BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SONY INDIA PVT. LTD. REPORTED IN 114 ITD 448. FOR THE ABOVE SAID PROPOSITION OF EXCLUSION OF ACCENTIA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. AND INFORMED TECHNOLOGIES LTD., THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT TURNOVER OF ASSESSEE WAS ABOUT 5.23 CRORES AND INFOSYS BPO LTD. HAD HIGH TURNOVER AND ITS EXCLUSION IS NOT CHALLENGED, BUT IS ONLY IN APPEAL AGAINST EXCLUSION OF ECLERX SERVICES LTD., WHICH WAS KPO COMPANY. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT TAX EFFECT IN THE APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE WAS BELOW THE LIMITS PRESCRIBED BY CBDT. 9. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE ON THE OTHER HAND, PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS A ND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE SEGMENT IN WHICH THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE IS THE ITES SEGMENT. THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN CARPET DESIGNING AND ITS PLANNING AND ESTIMATION OF COST, WHEREIN THE DESIGNS WERE PART OF DATA BASE OF BRINT ONS LTD., UK. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY GOES TO DATA BASE AND SELECTS THE DESIGNING AND SUGGESTS THE SAME. FOR BENCHMARKING ITS INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS, IT HAD SELECTED TNMM METHOD AS MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD AND HAD APPLIED OP/OC AS PLI AND WORKED OUT ITS MARGINS AT 11.72%. IN ORDER TO BENCHMARK THE SAID TRANSACTIONS, THE ASSESSEE HAD INITIALLY SELECTED 15 CONCERNS BUT BECAUSE OF CERTAIN REVISED FILTERS AND THE DATA BEING CONSIDERED FOR THE CONTEMPORANEOUS PERIOD ONLY, THE TPO IN FINAL ANALYSIS SELECTED 9 CONCERNS AS COMPARABLES I.E. 3 CONCERNS ORIGINALLY SELECTED BY THE ASSESSEE ITA NO. 1312 /P U N/20 1 5 ITA NO.1 349 /PUN/201 5 6 AND 6 CONCERNS FINALLY SELECTED BY THE TPO. THE LIST OF COMPARABLES ARE AS UNDER: - SR. NO. NAME OF THE COMPANY PLI BEFORE RISK ADJUSTMENT PLI AFTER RISK ADJUSTMENT 1 COSMIC GLOB AL LTD. 16.59% 14.59% 2 INFORMED TECHNOLOGIES INDIA LTD. 27.50% 25.50% 3 INFOSYS BPO LTD. 31.44% 29.44% 4 ACCENTIA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 38.74% 36.74% 5 CALIBER POINT BUSINESS SOLUTIONS (SEG.) 17.74% 15.74% 6 ECLERX SERVICES LTD. 55.94% 53.94% 7 FORTUNE INFOTECH LTD. 22.80% 20.80% 8 JEEVAN SOFTECH (SEG.) 60.14% 58.14% 9 JINDAL INTELLICOM PVT. LTD. 14.66% 12.66% AVERAGE 31.73% 29.73% 11. THE AVERAGE MARGINS OF SAID COMPARABLES AFTER RISK ADJUSTMENT OF 2% WORKED OUT TO 29.73% AS AGAINST MARGINS OF ASS ESSEE AT 11.72% AND HENCE, PROPOSAL OF AN UPWARD ADJUSTMENT OF 84,40,837/ - BY THE TPO. THE CIT(A) HAS DIRECTED EXCLUSION OF TWO CONCERNS I.E. INFOSYS BPO LTD. AND ECLERX SERVICES LTD. THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL ONLY WITH REGARD TO EXCLUSION OF EXCLERX SERVICES LTD. THE SEGMENTAL DETAILS OF THE SAID CONCERN WERE APP LIED BY THE TPO BUT THE CIT(A) HELD THE SAID CONCERN TO BE NOT COMPARABLE AS IT WAS KPO CONCERN. 12. THE PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. BNY MELLON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS (INDIA) (P.) LTD. (2017) 87 TAXMANN.COM 130 (PUNE - TRIB.) HAVE HELD IN TURN RELYING ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN RAMPGREEN SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. VS. CIT (2015) 377 ITR 533 (DEL) THAT ECLERX SERVICES LTD. BEING ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF KPO SERVICES, WAS NOT COMPARABLE TO THE ASSESSEE WHO WAS ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF BPO SERVICES. APPLYING THE SAID PROPOSITION TO THE FACTS OF PRESENT CASE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD AND DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY REVENUE. IN ANY CASE, THE TAX EFFECT IN APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE IS B ELOW THE LIMITS ITA NO. 1312 /P U N/20 1 5 ITA NO.1 349 /PUN/201 5 7 PRESCRIBED BY CBDT AND HENCE, APPEAL OF REVENUE IS ALSO NOT MAINTAINABLE ON THIS GROUND. 13. NOW, COMING TO APPEAL OF ASSESSEE, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS FIRST CLAIMED THAT ACCENTIA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. CANNOT BE SELECTED IN THE FINAL LIST OF COMPARABLES AS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THERE WA S AN EXTRAORDINARY EVENT OF AMALGAMATION. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT THAT THOUGH THE CIT(A) SAYS THAT THERE IS NO SUCH AMALGAMATION BUT HIS FINDING IS TOTALLY INCORRECT. IN THIS REGARD, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN DOVER INDIA (P.) LTD. VS. DCIT (2017) 88 TAXMANN.COM 115 (PUNE - TRIB.) , WHEREIN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 ITSELF, THE SAID CONCERN ACCENTIA TECHNOL OGIES LTD. WAS EXCLUDED BEING HIGH END KPO SERVICE PROVIDER. FURTHER, THE TRIBUNAL IN DCIT VS. BNY MELLON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS (INDIA) (P.) LTD. (SUPRA) HAVE NOTED THE EXTRAORDINARY EVENT OF ACQUISITION AND ALSO AMALGAMATION OF ANOTHER CONCERN AND HEL D THAT THE SAID CONCERN COULD NOT BE SELECTED AS COMPARABLE. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF TRIBUNAL ARE IN PARAS 12 AND 13, WHICH READ AS UNDER: - 12. THE NEXT CONCERN AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED OBJECTIONS IS ACCENTIA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. ON THE GROUND OF EXTRAORDINARY EVENTS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE SAID CONCERN HAD ACQUIRED IQ GROUP OF COMPANIES IN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND THERE WAS AMALGAMATION OF ASSCENT INFOSERVE PVT. LTD. WITH THE SAID CONCERN AND BECAUSE OF THESE EXTRAORDINARY EVEN TS, THE MARGINS OF SAID COMPANIES SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE FINAL SET OF COMPARABLES. THE PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN APTARA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT (2016) 72 TAXMANN.COM 352 (PUNE TRIB) AND CUMMINS TURBO TECHNOLOGIES LTD. VS. DCIT (2017) 79 T AXMANN.COM 260 (PUNE TRIB) HAS HELD THAT THE SAID CONCERN CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS COMPARABLE. THE TRIBUNAL IN APTARA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT (SUPRA) HELD AS UNDER: - 14. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 IN ITA NO.2235/PN/2012, ORDER DATED 02.02.2015 HAD HELD THAT THE SAID CONCERN COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS COMPARABLE BECAUSE OF CERTAIN EXTRAORDINARY EVENTS. THE SAID RATIO WAS ALSO APPLIED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE WHILE BENCHMARKING THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSA CTION OF ASSESSEE WITH ITS ASSOCIATE ENTERPRISES IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 IN ITA NO.267/PN/2014, ORDER DATED 29.04.2015. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 02.02.2015 HAD HELD THAT THE CONCERN ITA NO. 1312 /P U N/20 1 5 ITA NO.1 349 /PUN/201 5 8 ACCENTIA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. COULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE FINAL SET OF COMPARABLES HOLDING AS UNDER: - 13. NEXT, ASSESSEE HAD CONTENDED THAT ACCENTIA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. HAS BEEN WRONGLY INCLUDED BY THE TPO AS A COMPARABLE CONCERN. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, THE SAID CONCERN WAS ENGAGED IN FUNCTIONALLY DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE SAID CONCERN IS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING MEDICAL TRANSACTION, BILLING AND CODING SERVICES, APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT & CUSTOMIZATION (SEGMENTAL DATA NOT AVAILABLE). MOREOVER, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE SALES/TURNOVER OF THE SAID CONCERN WAS MORE THAN RS.50 CRORES FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHICH DID NOT MEET WITH TURNOVER FILTER APPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON THIS POINT, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SELECTED SALES/TURNOVER FILTER OF 1 - 50 CRORES I.E. ANY CONCERNS HAVING A TURNOVER EXCEEDING RS.50 CRORES WERE EXCLUDED. THIRDLY, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE SAID CONCERN WERE NOT COMPARABLE TO THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE. 14. THE TPO HAS NOTED THE AFORESAID OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN PARA 18.1 OF HIS ORDER AND HAS REJECTED THE SAME BY MERELY NOTICING THAT 75% OF THE REVENUE/INCOME OF THE SAID CONCERN IS FROM ITES AND THEREFORE IT IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS A COMPARABLE. BEFORE US, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS PUT - FORTH BEFORE THE TPO IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY EXCLUSION OF THE SAID CONCERN FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. IN PARTICULARLY, IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT THAT FOR THE VERY SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE BANGALORE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SYMPHONY MARKETING S OLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. ITO, (2013) 38 TAXMANN.COM 55 (BANG.) HAS EXCLUDED THE SAID CONCERN FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES IN A SIMILAR SITUATION FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HYDERABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CAPITAL IQ INFORMATION SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED VS. DCIT, (2013) 32 TAXMANN.COM 21 (HYD.). 15. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO THE STAND OF THE REVENUE AS EMERGING FROM THE ORDER OF THE TPO. IN OUR VIEW, THE RATIO LAID DOW N BY THE HYDERABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CAPITAL IQ INFORMATION SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED (SUPRA) AND BY THE BANGALORE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SYMPHONY MARKETING SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE ALSO. THE AFORESAID BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THERE WERE EXTRAORDINARY EVENTS THAT TOOK PLACE IN THE SAID CONCERN WHICH WARRANTED EXCLUSION OF THIS COMPANY AS A COMPARABLE. WE THEREFORE HOLD T HAT THE SAID CONCERN CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A COMPARABLE. 15. FURTHER, SIMILAR PROPOSITION HAS BEEN LAID DOWN BY DIFFERENT BENCHES OF TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE APPEALS RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 AND IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT BECAUSE OF EXTRAORDIN ARY EVENTS DURING THE YEAR, THE CONCERN ACCENTIA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. WAS NOT COMPARABLE TO THE ENTITIES ENGAGED IN ITES. FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING, WE HOLD THAT ACCENTIA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. IS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE FINAL SET OF COMPARABLES. ITA NO. 1312 /P U N/20 1 5 ITA NO.1 349 /PUN/201 5 9 1 3. FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING AS IN APTARA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT (SUPRA) AND CUMMINS TURBO TECHNOLOGIES LTD. VS. DCIT (SUPRA), WE HOLD THAT ACCENTIA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. CANNOT BE COMPARED AS COMPARABLE BECAUSE OF EXTRAORDINARY EVENTS OF ACQUISITION AND AMALGAMATION DURING THE YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER / TPO TO EXCLUDE ACCENTIAL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. FROM FINAL LIST OF COMPARABLES. 14. THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US IS SIMILAR TO THE ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND F OLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING, WE HOLD THAT ACCENTIA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. CANNOT BE COMPARED AS COMPARABLE BECAUSE OF EXTRAORDINARY EVENT OF ACQUISITION AND AMALGAMATION DURING THE YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE TPO/ASSESSING OFF ICER TO EXCLUDE ACCENTIA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. FROM FINAL LIST OF COMPARABLES. 15. NOW, COMING TO NEXT OBJECTION OF ASSESSEE IS THE CORRECT MARGINS OF CONCERN JEEVAN SOFTECH LTD. TO BE APPLIED. THE SAID CONCERN IS FUNCTIONALLY COMPARABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AND HAS BEEN SELECTED BY THE TPO IN THE FINAL LIST OF COMPARABLES. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY COMPUTATION OF PLI OF THE SAID CONCERN, IN TURN, RELYING ON SEGMENTAL DETAILS. 16. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE OF COMPUTATION OF PLI OF THE SAID CONCERN A ROSE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN DCIT VS. BNY MELLON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS (INDIA) (P.) LTD. (SUPRA) AND THE TRIBUNAL DIRECTED AS UNDER: - 14. THE NEXT PLEA RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS INCORRECT COMPUTATION OF PLI OF JEEVAN SCIENTIFIC TECHNOLOGY LTD., WHICH WA S EARLIER KNOWN AS JEEVAN SOFTECH LTD. THE SAID CONCERN WAS PICKED UP AS COMPARABLE AND THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT APPLYING MARGINS. THE ONLY DISPUTE WHICH IS RAISED BEFORE US IS THE COMPUTATION OF PLI OF SAID CONCERN, WHEREIN THE SEGMENTAL DETAILS WERE R EFERRED. HOWEVER, THE TPO WHILE CONSIDERING THE MARGINS OF SAID CONCERN HAD ONLY CONSIDERED BPO OPERATIONS, WHERE THE SALES WERE CONSIDERED AT ONLY RS.1,41,10,000/ - WHICH WAS THE REVENUE FROM BPO OPERATIONS AND HAD NOT CONSIDERED ERP SEGMENT REVENUE FROM WHERE IT WAS CLASSIFIED AS BEING FROM ITES SEGMENT. 15. SIMILAR ISSUE OF COMPUTATION OF PLI OF SAID CONCERN JEEVAN SOFTECH LTD. AROSE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF APTARA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT (SUPRA) FOR THE INSTANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: - ITA NO. 1312 /P U N/20 1 5 ITA NO.1 349 /PUN/201 5 10 26. ANOTHER CONCERN WHICH WAS SELECTED BY THE TPO WAS JEEVAN SOFTECH LTD. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US POINTED OUT THAT THE TPO HAS ERRED IN WORKING OF THE MARGINS OF SAID CONCERN BY ADOPTING SALES AT RS.1.41 CRORES, WHICH ADMITTEDLY IS REVENUE FROM BPO OPERATIONS. HOWEVER, THE TPO HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER ERP SEGMENT REVENUE WHICH IS ALSO CLASSIFIED IN THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF JEEVAN SOFTECH LTD. AS BEING FROM ITES SEGMENT AND IF THE SEGME NTAL MARGINS OF ITES SEGMENT ARE TAKEN UP, WHICH INCLUDES TOTAL SALES / INCOME OF RS.1,74,43,276/ - . THE MARGIN OF THE SAID CONCERN WORKED OUT TO 8.04% AS AGAINST 39.38% APPLIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE SEGMENTAL DETAILS OF SAID CONCERN WHICH ARE PLACED AT PAGES 838 TO 846 OF THE PAPER BOOK. WITH REGARD TO WORKING OF THE TPO, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATI VE FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO PAGE 406 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 27. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE FAIRLY POINTED OUT THAT THE CORRECTION OF MARGINS IS TO BE GIVEN IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE WHILE BENCHMARKING ITS INTERNATIONAL TRANSA CTION AND BY INCLUDING JEEVAN SOFTECH LTD. IN THE FINAL LIST OF COMPARABLES. 28. IN THE TOTALITY OF THE ABOVE SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND MERIT IN THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER / TPO TO WORK OUT THE CORRECT MARGINS OF SAID CONCERN JEEVAN SOFTECH LTD. AND THEREAFTER, DETERMINE THE AVERAGE MARGINS OF COMPARABLES. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER / TPO TO EXCLUDE THREE CONCERNS I.E. (1) ACCENTIA TECHNOLOGIES LTD., (2) COSMIC GLOBAL LTD. AND (3) INF ORMED TECHNOLOGIES LTD. FROM THE FINAL LIST OF COMPARABLES AND TO CORRECT THE MARGINS OF JEEVAN SOFTECH LTD. AND WORK OUT THE AVERAGE MARGINS OF COMPARABLES. IT WAS THE CASE OF LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US THAT THE SAME WOU LD BE WITHIN +/ - 5% AND HENCE NO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ARM'S LENGTH PRICE OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION WITH THE ASSOCIATE ENTERPRISES IS TO BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. 16. FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER/ TP O TO WORK OUT CORRECT MARGINS OF SAID CONCERN JEEVAN SOFTECH LTD. AND THEN DETERMINE AVERAGE MARGINS OF COMPARABLES AND APPLY THE SAME. 17. THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US IS SIMILAR TO THE ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND FOLLOWING THE SA ME PARITY OF REASONING, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER / TPO TO WORK OUT THE CORRECT PLI OF SAID CONCERN JEEVAN SOFTECH LTD. AND THEN DETERMINE THE AVERAGE MARGINS OF COMPARABLES IN ORDER TO COMPUTE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS. ITA NO. 1312 /P U N/20 1 5 ITA NO.1 349 /PUN/201 5 11 18. T HE LAST CONCERN WHICH NEEDS TO BE EXCLUDED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE IS INFORMED TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 19. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN APTARA TECHNOLOGIES (P.) LTD. VS. ACIT (2016) 72 TAXMANN.COM 352 (PUNE - TRIB.) HAD CONSIDERED THE ISSUE OF EXCLUSION OF INFOR MED TECHNOLOGIES LTD. ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS SHOWING ABNORMAL PROFITABILITY TREND. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE PARAS 21 TO 25 HAD OBSERVED AS UNDER: - 21. ANOTHER ASPECT RAISED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO INFORMED TEC HNOLOGIES LTD. WAS THAT THE SAID CONCERN WAS SHOWING ABNORMAL PROFITABILITY TREND. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN CUMMINS TURBO TECHNOLOGIES LTD., UK VS. DDIT (INT. TAX) IN ITA NOS.161 & 2 69/PN/2013, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007 - 08 & 2008 - 09, ORDER DATED 29.09.2014 HAD REJECTED THE SAID CONCERN AS COMPARABLE COMPANY. IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT EVEN FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION , THERE WAS DECLINE IN THE PROFITABILITY AT 6.97% AS AGAINST IN THE EARLIER YEARS I.E. 22.61% AND 26.73%. 22. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE ON THE OTHER HAND, POINTED OUT THAT THE PROFITABILITY SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS SIMILAR TO THE PROFITABILITY SHOWN IN THE SUCCEEDING YEAR AND HENCE, COMPARABLE. 23. ON PERUSAL OF RECORD AND THE ORDERS OF TRIBUNAL IN EARLIER YEARS IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE AND ALSO OUR ORDER IN THE PARAS HEREINABOVE, WHEREIN, WE H AVE DIRECTED THAT COSMIC GLOBAL LTD. HAS TO BE EXCLUDED BECAUSE OF ITS HIGH TRANSACTION CHARGES AND LOW EMPLOYEE COST TO THE TOTAL COST RATIO, WE FIND THAT INFORMED TECHNOLOGIES LTD. FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS ALSO FOLLOWING DIFFERENT BUSINESS MOD ULE AND THE EMPLOYEE COST TO THE TOTAL COST RATIO OF THE SAID CONCERN FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS 36.79% AS AGAINST 71.26% OF THE ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY, IN THE EARLIER YEARS ALSO, THE EMPLOYEE COST RATIO OF INFORMED TECHNOLOGIES LTD. WAS LOWER THAN THE SAID RATIO SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN RAMPGREEN SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA) HAVE ALSO EXCLUDED THE CONCERN DUE TO ITS LOW EMPLOYEE COST RATIO AND OPERATIONAL ON DIFFERENT BUSINESS MODULE. FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING, WE HOLD THAT THE SAID CONCERN IS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE FINAL LIST OF COMPARABLES. WE HOLD SO. 24. ANOTHER ASPECT RELATING TO THE SAID CONCERN WAS VARYING PROFITABILITY SHOWN BY INFORMED TECHNOLOGIES LTD. WHICH IS AS UNDER: - PARTICULAR S FY 2005 - 06 FY 2006 - 07 FY 2007 - 08 FY 2008 - 09 FY 2009 - 10 FY 2010 - 11 FY 2011 - 12 OP/OC - 44.21% 34.71% 3.67% 22.61% 26.73% 6.97% 5.12% 25. WHERE COMPARABLE PICKED UP BY THE TPO FOR THE PURPOSE OF BENCHMARKING THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION IN THE HANDS OF A SSESSEE IS SHOWING SUCH DIFFERENTIAL PROFITABILITY EARNED FROM YEAR TO YEAR, THEN SUCH A CONCERN CANNOT BE PICKED UP AS BEING FUNCTIONALLY SIMILAR BECAUSE OF ABNORMAL ITA NO. 1312 /P U N/20 1 5 ITA NO.1 349 /PUN/201 5 12 PROFITABILITY TREND. IN THIS REGARD, WE FIND THAT PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF CUMM INS TURBO TECHNOLOGIES LTD., UK VS. DDIT (INT. TAX,) (SUPRA) HAD ALSO HELD THAT INFORMED TECHNOLOGIES LTD., BECAUSE OF ITS ABNORMAL PROFITABILITY TREND, IS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE FINAL LIST OF COMPARABLES. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD SO. 20. THE YEAR UNDER AP PEAL BEFORE US IS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 AND THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SHOWING DIFFERENT PROFITABILITY FROM YEAR TO YEAR AND SUCH A CONCERN CANNOT BE PICKED UP AS BEING FUNCTIONALLY SIMILAR BECAUSE OF ABNORMAL PROFITABILITY TREND. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER / TPO TO EXCLUDE INFORMED TECHNOLOGIES LTD. FROM FINAL LIST OF COMPARABLES. 21. THE LAST ISSUE WHICH IS RAISED IS THE CLAIM OF RISK ADJUSTMENT OUT OF MARGINS OF COMPARABLES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER/TPO HAS ALLOWED THE AFORESAID RISK ADJU STMENT @ 2% IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT IT BE ALLOWED THE SAID BENEFIT IN LINE WITH THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN STARENT NETWORKS (INDIA) (P.) LTD. VS. ACIT (2018) 90 TAXMANN.COM 367 (PUNE - TRIB.) . 22. T HE TRIBUNAL IN PARAS 34 AND 35 OF THE SAID ORDER HAD HELD AS UNDER: - 34. NOW, COMING TO THE LAST ISSUE IN RESPECT OF ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF RISK DIFFERENCES. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING REMUNERATED ON COST PLUS BASIS WH ERE IT IS PROVIDING SERVICES TO ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES, IT IS RISK FREE AND ADJUSTMENT FOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FUNCTIONAL AND RISK PROFILE OF THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES IS TO BE ALLOWED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. 35. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED IN DCIT VS. APPLIED MICRO CIRCUITS INDIA PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: - 18. THE NEXT ISSUE RAISED VIDE GROUND OF OBJECTION NO.2.2 IS AGAINST THE CLAIM OF RISK ADJUSTMENT. THE PLEA OF ASSESSEE THAT RISK ADJUSTMENT SHOULD HAVE B EEN GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FUNCTIONAL AND RISK PROFILE OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES VIS - - VIS ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS RISK MITIGATED ENTITY, WHER EAS THE COMPARABLES WERE RISK BEARING. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE WORKING AS PER THE DECISION OF BANGALORE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN PHILIPS SOFTWARE CENTRE PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT REPORTED IN 26 ITA NO. 1312 /P U N/20 1 5 ITA NO.1 349 /PUN/201 5 13 SOT 226 AND THE DELHI BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SONY INDIA PVT. LTD. REPORTED IN 114 ITD 448. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD PLACED RELIANCE ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN MSC SOFTWARE CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT IN I TA NO.46/PUN/2013, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09, ORDER DATED 22.03.2017. 19. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY EARLIER DECISIONS OF THE PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN MSC SOFTWARE CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT (SUPRA), WHEREIN THE SAI D CONCERN WAS ALSO CAPTIVE SERVICE PROVIDER TO ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES AND HAD CLAIMED TO BE RISK FREE. IT HAD ASKED FOR RISK ADJUSTMENT IN THE MARGINS OF FINALLY SELECTED COMPARABLES AND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 22.03.2017 HELD AS UNDER: - 34. F OLLOWING THE SAID RATIO, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE RISK ADJUSTMENT AND RE - COMPUTE THE MARGINS OF COMPARABLES BY APPLYING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY DELHI BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SONY INDIA PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) AND COMPUTE THE TP ADJUSTMENT, IF ANY, IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. 35. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.10 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST APPLICABILITY OF +/ - 5% AND THE BENEFIT CAN BE ALLOWED IF THE ADJUSTMENT IS WITHIN SUCH RANGE AND HENCE, NO ADJUSTMENT IS TO BE MADE IN CASE IT IS NOT MORE THAN 5% FROM THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE. WE HOLD SO. 20. THE ISSUE ARISING BEFORE US IS SIMILAR AND FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW RISK ADJUSTMENT AND RE - WORK THE MARGINS OF COMPARABLES, IN TURN, RELYING ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE DELHI BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SONY INDIA PVT . LTD. (SUPRA) AND COMPUTE THE TP ADJUSTMENT, IF ANY, IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. THE GROUND OF OBJECTION NO.2.2 IS THUS, ALLOWED. 23. THE ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OF RISK ADJUSTMENT STANDS SETTLED BY VARIOUS DECISIONS OF DIFFERENT BENCHES OF TRIBUNAL AND AP PLYING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW RISK ADJUSTMENT @ 20% TO THE MARGINS OF COMPARABLES AND COMPUTE THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT, IF ANY, IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER / TPO SHALL AFFORD REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE FINALLY COMPUTING ARM'S LENGTH PRICE OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS IN LINE WITH OUR DIRECTIONS IN THE PARAS HEREINABOVE. HOWEVER, IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, WE SUMMARIZE OUR DECISION I.E. CONCERN S ECLERX SERVICES LTD., ACCENTIA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. AND INFORMED TECHNOLOGIES LTD. ARE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM FINAL LIST OF COMPARABLES ; THE PLI OF MARGINS OF JEEVAN SOFTECH LTD. NEED TO BE RE - ITA NO. 1312 /P U N/20 1 5 ITA NO.1 349 /PUN/201 5 14 COMPUTED AND FURTHER RISK ADJUSTMENT IS TO BE ALLOWED @ 20% AND NOT 2%. ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 24 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 29 TH DAY OF MARCH , 201 9 . SD/ - SD/ - (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 29 TH MARCH , 201 9 . GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 1 3 , PUNE ; 4. THE CIT(IT/TP) / PR. CIT - 1 , PUNE ; 5. 6. , , / DR B , ITAT, PUNE ; / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE