DCIT, Bangalore V. M/s Ikanos Communication India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 137/BANG/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1526 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 27-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 11-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction

Judgement Text

IT(TP)A.137/BANG/2015 & CO.109/BANG/2015 PAGE - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'C', BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. VIJAYPAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T(IT).A NO.137/BANG/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(1)(1), BANGALORE .. APPELLANT V. M/S. IKANOS COMMUNICATION INDIA PVT. LTD, 3 RD FLOOR, CORPORATE MILLER, NO.332/1, THIMMAIAH ROAD, VASANTHNAGAR, BANGALORE 560 052 .. RESPONDENT PAN : AABCI1928F CROSS OBJECTION NO.109/BANG/2015 (IN I.T(IT).A NO.137/BANG/2015) (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) (BY THE ASSESSEE) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. AJIT TOLANI, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI. SANJAY KUMAR, CIT - III HEARD ON : 27.10.2015 PRONOUNCED ON : 10.11.2015 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THESE ARE APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION BY THE REVENU E AND ASSESSEE RESPECTIVELY, DIRECTED AGAINST AN ASSESSMENT MADE B Y THE AO U/S.143(3) OF IT(TP)A.137/BANG/2015 & CO.109/BANG/2015 PAGE - 2 THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT IN SHORT), PURS UANT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP UNDER SECTION 144C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1 961 (THE ACT IN SHORT). 02. APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS TAKEN UP FIRST FOR DIS POSAL. REVENUE HAS ALTOGETHER TAKEN SIX GROUNDS OUT OF WHICH, GROUNDS 1, 5 AND 6 ARE GENERAL NEEDING NO SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. 03. VIDE GROUNDS 2 AND 3, GRIEVANCE RAISED BY THE R EVENUE IS THAT DRP DIRECTED EXCLUSION OF EXPENDITURE DEDUCTED FROM EXP ORT TURNOVER, FROM TOTAL TURNOVER ALSO WHILE COMPUTING ELIGIBLE DEDUCTION U/ S.10A OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT CIT (A) HAD RELIED ON THE DECISION OF JUR ISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. TATA ELXSI LTD (349 ITR 98), WHE REIN IT WAS HELD UNEQUIVOCALLY BY THEIR LORDSHIPS THAT ITEMS EXCLUDE D FROM EXPORT TURNOVER HAD TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE TOTAL TURNOVER ALSO WHI LE WORKING OUT THE ELIGIBLE DEDUCTION. SINCE THE CIT (A) HAD FOLLOWE D THE JUDGMENT OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, JUST FOR A REASON THAT A N SLP HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, WE CANNOT DEVIATE FROM TH E VIEW TAKEN BY THE CIT (A). ACCORDINGLY WE DISMISS GROUNDS 2 AND 3 OF THE REVENUE. 04. VIDE ITS GROUND 4, GRIEVANCE RAISED BY THE REVE NUE IS THAT DRP DIRECTED EXCLUSION OF M/S. INFOSYS LTD, M/S. ICRA T ECHNO ANALYTICS LTD, IT(TP)A.137/BANG/2015 & CO.109/BANG/2015 PAGE - 3 M/S. KALS INFORMATION SYSTEMS LTD AND M/S. PERSISTE NT SYSTEMS LTD FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES CONSIDERED BY THE TPO FOR A NALYSING THE PRICING OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WITH ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES (AE). 05. LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS PROVIDING CO NTRACT SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO ITS PRINCIPAL AT USA, CALLE D IKANOS COMMUNICATIONS INC. USA AND IKANOS TECHNOLOGY LTD, CAYMAN ISLAND. AS PER THE LD. DR, BOTH THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE TPO HAD FOLLOWED TNMM FOR BENCH MARKING THE PRICING OF ITS INTERNATI ONAL TRANSACTIONS WITH ITS AE. LD. DR POINTED OUT THAT ASSESSEE HAD BEFOR E THE TPO OBJECTED TO INFOSYS LTD BEING TAKEN AS A COMPARABLE FOR REASONS LIKE HUGE TURNOVER, SOFTWARE PRODUCT REVENUES, OWNING OF INTANGIBLES AN D SIGNIFICANT R & D EXPENDITURE. AS PER THE LD. DR, TPO HAD POINTED O UT THAT INFOSYS LTD WAS COMPARABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD ITSELF SELECTED CERTAIN COMPARABLES WHICH HAD BRANDING EXPENDITURE IN ITS P ROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. AS PER THE LD. DR REVENUE FROM SOFTWARE PRODUCTS SA LE OF INFOSYS LTD WAS ONLY 4.3% OF ITS TOTAL REVENUES AND ITS R &D EXPEND ITURE WAS ONLY 1.26% OF ITS REVENUES. RELYING ON THE DECISION OF MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CAPGEMINI INDIA PVT. LTD V. ACIT [(2 014) 147 ITD 330], IT(TP)A.137/BANG/2015 & CO.109/BANG/2015 PAGE - 4 LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT SIZE OF THE COMPANY HAD NO RE LEVANCE AND THERE WAS NO CORRELATION BETWEEN SALES VOLUME AND PROFITS IN SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. ACCORDING TO HIM, DRP HAD SIMPLY RELIED ON THE ANNUAL REPORT OF INFOSYS LTD, WHILE DIRECTION ITS EXCLUSION WITHOUT CLOSELY VERIFYING THE REASONS WHY TPO HAD REJECTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. 06. PER CONTRA, LD. AR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE D RP. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HYDERABAD BENCH OF T HIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PEGASYSTEMS WORLDWIDE INDIA P. LTD V. ACIT [ITA. 1758 & 1936/HYD/2014, DT.16.10.2015. AS PER THE LD. AR, P EGASYSTEMS WORLDWIDE INDIA P. LTD, WAS ALSO INTO SOFTWARE DEVE LOPMENT SERVICES AND THE TRIBUNAL HAD CONSIDERED THE COMPARABILITY OF IN FOSYS LTD, IN THE SAID CASE. 07. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT INFOSYS BRAND HAS A SIGNIFICANT INTAN GIBLE VALUE AND IT HAD REVENUE FROM SOFTWARE PRODUCT SEGMENT ALSO. HONBL E DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. AGNITY INDIA TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD [93 DTR 375], WHILE AFFIRMING A DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT INFOSYS LTD COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS A COMPARABLE, HAD UPHELD THE VIEW THAT IT WAS A GIANT COMPANY IN THE AREA OF DEVELOPMENT OF SOFTWAR E, ASSUMING ALL RISKS IT(TP)A.137/BANG/2015 & CO.109/BANG/2015 PAGE - 5 LEADING TO HIGHER PROFITS. FURTHER IN THE CASE OF PEGASYSTEMS WORLDWIDE INDIA P. LTD (SUPRA), WHICH WAS ALSO FOR THE VERY S AME ASSESSMENT YEAR, THIS TRIBUNAL HAD HELD AS UNDER AT PARA 22 OF ITS ORDER : 22. GROUND NO.2 PERTAINS TO REJECTION OF INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD., FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES BY DRP. WE HAVE ALREADY CONSIDERED THE OPINION OF DRP WHICH IS CONSISTENT NOT ONLY IN ASSESSEE'S CASE BUT ALSO IN THE CASE OF M/S. SUMTOTAL SYSTEMS INDIA PVT. LTD., (SUPRA), EXTRACTED ABOVE WHILE CONSIDERING THE EXCLUSION OF L&T INFOTECH LTD. SINCE DRP'S DECISION IS CONSISTENT WI TH THE STAND TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IN OTHER CASES AND ALSO BY THE ITAT IN A NUMBER OF CASES ON REASON OF TURNOVER, BR AND EQUITY, FUNCTIONAL DISSIMILARITY, WE ARE OF THE OPI NION THAT DRP IS CORRECT IN EXCLUDING THE ABOVE COMPANY FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO MER IT IN THE REVENUE'S GROUND AND THE SAME IS REJECTED. ACCORDINGLY WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT DRP WAS JUST IFIED IN DIRECTING EXCLUSION OF INFOSYS LTD FROM THE LIST OF COMPARAB LES. 08. ASSAILING THE DIRECTION OF THE DRP DIRECTING EX CLUSION OF ICRA TECHNO ANALYTICS LTD, , LD. DR POINTED OUT THAT ASS ESSEE HAD CITED FUNCTIONAL INCOMPATABILITY FOR EXCLUDING THIS COMPA NY BEFORE THE TPO. AS PER THE LD. DR, DIRECTORS REPORT OF THE SAID COMPA NY MENTIONED THAT IT WAS PROVIDING TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS AND THE SERVICES REN DERED DONE BY IT WERE NOT DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE ASSESSEE. AS PER TH E LD. DR, DRP HAD ERRONEOUSLY HELD THAT SERVICES SEGMENT OF THE SAID COMPANY COMPRISED OF IT(TP)A.137/BANG/2015 & CO.109/BANG/2015 PAGE - 6 SOFTWARE CONSULTANCY, ENGINEERING SERVICES, WEB DEV ELOPMENT, WEB HOSTING ETC., IN ADDITION TO SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AND SEGME NTAL INFORMATION WAS NOT AVAILABLE. AS PER THE LD. DR EVEN IF SEGMENTAL INFORMATION WAS NOT READILY AVAILABLE, DRP SHOULD HAVE DIRECTED THE AO TO OBTAIN SUCH DATA FROM THE CONCERNED COMPANY INSTEAD OF DIRECTING ITS EXCLUSION. 09. PER CONTRA, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT SEGMENTAL RES ULTS BEING UNAVAILABLE, ICRA TECHNO ANALYTICS LTD, COULD NOT B E CONSIDERED AS A GOOD COMPARABLE. AS PER THE LD. AR, REVENUE OF THE SAID COMPANY INCLUDED LICENSING AND SUB-LICENSING FEE, WEB DEVEL OPMENT AND HOSTING, BUT THESE WERE NOT SEPARATELY AVAILABLE FOR ANALYSIS. AS PER THE LD. AR, THE SAID COMPANY WAS PURCHASING AND RESELLING BRANDED C OMPUTER SOFTWARE. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DIRECTORS REPORT OF TH E SAID COMPANY FOR F. Y. 2009-10. 10. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. NOTES TO ACCOUNTS OF ICRA TECHNO ANALYTICS LTD FORMING A PAR T OF ITS AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS AND ANNUAL REPORT F OR YEAR ENDED 31.03.2010 MENTIONS AS UNDER : IT(TP)A.137/BANG/2015 & CO.109/BANG/2015 PAGE - 7 IN THE NOTE DETAILING OF THE REVENUE RECOGNITION WH ICH ALSO FORM A PART OF ITS ANNUAL REPORT IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT ITS REVENUE S TREAM CONSISTED OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANCY, ENGINEERING SERVI CES, WEB DEVELOPMENT AND HOSTING. THUS ICRA TECHNO ANALYTICS HAD MORE T HAN ONE SEGMENT. THERE IS NO CASE FOR THE REVENUE THAT THE SEGMENTAL RESULTS WERE SEPARATELY AVAILABLE IN PUBLIC DOMAIN OR WAS NOT OBTAINED BY T HE TPO FROM THE SAID COMPANY, INVOKING THE POWERS VESTED ON HIM. IN SU CH A SITUATION THE DRP, IN OUR OPINION, WAS JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING EXC LUSION OF ICRA TECHNO ANALYTICS LTD FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. 11. LD. DR ASSAILING THE ORDER OF DRP FOR EXCLUSION OF KALS INFORMATION SYSTEMS LTD, SUBMITTED THAT KALS INFORMATION SYSTEM S LTD WAS A SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMPANY NOT A SOFTWARE PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY. AS PER THE LD. DR THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD STATED THAT KALS INFORMATION SYSTEMS LTD WAS A FULL-FLEDGED PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, IT(TP)A.137/BANG/2015 & CO.109/BANG/2015 PAGE - 8 THE DATA WHICH WAS RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CO MING TO SUCH CONCLUSION WAS NOT AVAILABLE IN THE ANNUAL REPORT. AS PER THE LD. DR, THE SAID COMPANY DID NOT OWN ANY SOFTWARE PRODUCT OF ITS OWN , BUT WAS ONLY PROVIDING SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO OTHER PA RTIES. ACCORDING TO HIM, CONCLUSION OF THE DRP THAT IT WAS INTO PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT AND NOT PROVIDING SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES WAS INCORRE CT. 12. PER CONTRA, LD. AR SUPPORTED THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP. 13. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. IN THE ANNUAL REPORT FOR F. Y. 2009-19 OF KALS INFORMATION SYSTEMS LTD, BACKGROUND OF THE SAID COMPANY HAS BEEN MENTIONED A S UNDER : 14. SAID COMPANY WAS HAVING SIGNIFICANT INVENTORY C OMING TO 27% OF ITS CURRENT ASSETS. INVENTORY HELD BY KALS INFORMATION SYSTEMS LTD CAME TO RS.60,47,977/-. WE ALSO FIND THAT HYDERABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF PEGASYSTEMS WORLDWIDE INDIA P. LTD (SUPRA) HAD HELD AS UNDER AT PARA 10.1 OF ITS ORDER VIS--VIS THE COMPARABILITY OF M/S. KA LS INFORMATION SYSTEMS LTD : IT(TP)A.137/BANG/2015 & CO.109/BANG/2015 PAGE - 9 10.1. ASSESSEES MAIN OBJECTION BEFORE US IS ON FUN CTIONALITY OF THE COMPARABLE COMPANY. AS SEEN FROM THE ANNUAL REP ORT OF 2008-09 AND 2009-10 AND COMPARATIVE STATEMENT PLACE D BY ASSESSEE, THE COMPANY CLASSIFIED ITSELF AS THE COM PANY ENGAGED IN DEVELOPMENT OF SOFTWARE AND SOFTWARE PRODUCTS SI NCE ITS INCEPTION. THE COMPANY CONSISTING OF STPI UNIT ENG AGED IN DEVELOPMENT OF SOFTWARE AND SOFTWARE PRODUCTS AND A TRAINING CENTRE ENGAGED IN TRAINING OF SOFTWARE PROFESSIONAL S ON ON-LINE PROJECTS. THIS INDICATES THAT COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN DEVELOPMENT OF SOFTWARE AND PRODUCTS AND ITS INVENTORY ALSO IND ICATES THAT ASSESSEE HAS BEEN USING ITS READYMADE LIBRARIES FOR SALES. THIS COMPANY WAS REJECTED IN EARLIER YEAR ON FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS BY ITAT IN THE CASE OF PLANET ONLINE PVT. LTD., IN ITA NO. 464/HYD/2014 WHERE IN IT WAS HELD THAT COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN DEVELOPMENT OF SOFTWARE PRODUCTS. SINCE ITS ANNUAL REPORT STATES THE SAME FACTS IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE COMPANY CANNOT BE SELECTED AS A COMPARABLE AS IT WAS ENGAGED IN DEVELOPMENT OF SOFTWARE AND SOFTWARE PRO DUCTS. ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSEES OBJECTIONS ARE ACCEPTED AND AO IS DIRECTED TO EXCLUDE THE COMPANY. ACCORDINGLY WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT DRP WAS CORR ECT IN DIRECTING EXCLUSION OF THE SAID COMPANY FROM THE LIST OF COMP ARABLES. 15. ASSAILING THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP FOR EXCLUSI ON OF PERSISTENT SYSTEMS AND SOLUTIONS LTD, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT AS SESSEE HAD NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION ON THIS COMPARABLE BEFORE THE TPO. A CCORDING TO HIM ASSESSEE HAD FOR THE FIRST TIME ASSAILED ITS COMPAR ABILITY BEFORE THE DRP, WHILE ACCEPTING IT AS A GOOD COMPARABLE BEFORE THE TPO. ACCORDING TO HIM, DRP HAD ACCEPTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESS EE WITHOUT VERIFYING THE DATA FURNISHED BY IT. IT(TP)A.137/BANG/2015 & CO.109/BANG/2015 PAGE - 10 16. PER CONTRA, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT PERSISTENT SY STEMS AND SOLUTIONS LTD WAS RENDERING OUTSOURCED PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT SE RVICES AND NOT ANY SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AS SUCH. ACCORDING TO HIM, IT S REVENUE WAS FROM SALE OF PRODUCT SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND S EGMENTAL RESULTS WERE NOT AVAILABLE. RELYING ON THE ANNUAL REPORT OF PER SISTENT SYSTEMS AND SOLUTIONS FOR F. Y. 2009-10, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS PROVIDING END TO END PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. FURTHER AS PER T HE LD. AR WEB-SITE OF THE SAID COMPANY CLEARLY INDICATED THAT IT WAS DEVE LOPING PRODUCTS LIKE PAXPRO, CHEMLMS, VIEMOR, CLAP, E2GMIGRATOR, TLALOC, EMEE. THUS ACCORDING TO HIM, DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP WERE J UST AND PROPER. 17. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. NO DOUBT ASSESSEE HAD RAISED NO OBJECTIONS WITH REGARD TO INCLUSION OF PERSISTENT SYSTEMS AND SOLUTIONS LTD AS A COMPARABL E, WHEN IT WAS SO SUGGESTED BY THE TPO. HOWEVER BEFORE THE DRP ASSES SEE HAD STATED THAT THE SAID COMPANY WAS ENGAGED IN OUTSOURCED PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND NOT INTO SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. ANNUAL REPORT OF PERSISTENT SYSTEMS AND SOLUTIONS, STATES AS UNDER : IT(TP)A.137/BANG/2015 & CO.109/BANG/2015 PAGE - 11 IT IS ALSO MENTIONED THAT THEY WERE PROVIDING OUT-S OURCED PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF ITS REVENUE WAS FROM EXPORT OF SOFTWARE SERVICES AS WELL AS PRODUCTS. I N THE P & L ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31.03.2010, REVENUE FROM SALE OF SO FTWARE SERVICES AND PRODUCTS CAME TO RS.5,044.13 MILLIONS. THERE WAS N O SEGMENTATION OF THE RESULTS INTO SOFTWARE SERVICES AND SOFTWARE PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT. THUS SEGMENTAL RESULTS WERE NOT AVAILABLE AND THE ASSESS EE HAS ALSO SHOWN THAT M/S. PERSISTENT SYSTEMS & SOLUTIONS LTD, WAS DEVELO PING PRODUCTS LIKE PAXPRO, CHEMLMS, VIEMOR, CLAP, E2GMIGRATOR, TLALOC, EMEE. IN SUCH A SITUATION WE ARE OF THE OPINION LD. DRP RIGH TLY DIRECTED EXCLUSION OF PERSISTENT SYSTEMS AND SOLUTIONS LTD FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. DRP HAS ALSO GIVEN A FINDING THAT ASSESSEE WAS RENDERIN G CONTRACT SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO ITS PRINCIPAL ABROAD AND SU CH SERVICES WERE PROVIDED BY IT THROUGH PROJECTS AND ASSIGNMENTS CON TRACTED TO IT BY THEIR PRINCIPALS ABROAD. THUS, ACCORDING TO US, DRP WAS JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING IT(TP)A.137/BANG/2015 & CO.109/BANG/2015 PAGE - 12 EXCLUSION OF PERSISTENT SYSTEMS AND SOLUTIONS LTD, CONSIDERING THE FUNCTIONAL PROFILE OF THE ASSESSEE AS DISSIMILAR FR OM THAT OF PERSISTENT SYSTEMS AND SOLUTIONS LTD. 18. TO SUMMARISE WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT NO PROP ER REASONS HAVE BEEN SHOWN BY THE REVENUE FOR INTERFERING WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP TO EXCLUDE INFOSYS LTD, ICRA TECHNO ANALYTICS LTD, KALS INFORMATION SYSTEMS LTD AND PERSISTENT SYSTEMS AND SOLUTIONS LT D FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES CONSIDERED BY THE TPO FOR BENCH MARKING THE PRICING OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS IN THE NATURE OF SOFTWAR E DEVELOPMENT SERVICES RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS AE ABROAD. GROUND 4 OF THE REVENUE THEREFORE STANDS DISMISSED. 19. WHEN THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TA KEN UP, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT HE WAS NOT PURSUING THE CROSS OBJECT ION. 20. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE A S WELL AS CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10TH DAY OF N OVEMBER, 2015. SD/- SD/- (VIJAYPAL RAO) (ABRAH AM P GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MCN