Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 1478/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1824 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I2
• Next Hearing Date: 07-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 13-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MITALI MADHUSMITA
• Assessee Lawyers: RAHUL K MITRA
• Keywords: Related party transaction; Transfer pricing; Principle of natural justice; International transaction; Wholly owned subsidiary
• Section: 234B; 92

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH I-2, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J.S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO. 1478/DEL/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-11) BECHTEL INDIA PVT. LTD., 418, NAURANG HOUSE, 21, K.G. MARG, NEW DELHI. AAACB0298A VS DCIT, CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI. APPELLANT BY SHRI RAHUL K. MITRA, CA RESPONDENT BY SMT. MITALI MADHUSMITA, CIT(DR) ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.01.2015, OF LD. DCIT CIRCLE 4(2) U/S 143 (3) R.W. SEC 144C OF I.T. ACT, 1961 FOR A.Y. 2010-11. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING T OTAL INCOME OF RS.33,42,28,149/-. SUBSEQUENTLY THE SAME WAS REVISE D TO RS.33,39,32,080/-. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS A CAPTIVE SERVICE PROVIDER, PROV IDING (A) ENGINEERING DESIGN AND RELATED SERVICES, (B) FINANC IAL AND ACCOUNTING DATE OF HEARING 07.10.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21.12.2015 2 ITA NO. 14 78/DEL/2015 SUPPORT (FAS) SERVICES AND (C) IT INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT SERVICES (IT INFRA) TO ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES (AES), TO S UPPORT THE OVERSEA OFFICES TURNKEY PROJECT EXECUTION. THE INTERNATION AL TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: S. NO. INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION AMOUNT (IN RS.) 1. ENGINEERING SERVICES/OTHER SERVICES 114,37,93, 036/- 2. FINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING SUPPORT SERVICES 4,57,02,508/- 3. IT INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT SERVICES. 5,50,0 4,596/- 4. REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES(PAID) 6,70, 973/- 5. REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES(RECEIVED) 21,97,07,529/- 4. FOR BENCHMARKING THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS, ASSESSEE SELECTED TNMM AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD (MAM), WITH OPE RATING PROFIT TO TOTAL COST(OP/TC) AS PROFIT LEVEL INDICATOR (PLI ). THE APPROACH FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE TP STUDY HAS BEEN E NCAPSULATED IN THE TABLE BELOW: NATURE OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION AMOUNT (IN INR CRORES) MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD & PROFIT LEVEL INDICATOR (PLI) RESULTS APPELLA NTS PLI NO. OF COMPARABLES MARGIN OF COMPARABLES IN TP STUDY* PROVISION OF ENGINEERING DESIGN AND 114.38 METHOD: TNMM PLI: OP/TC 13.04% 6 11.79% 3 ITA NO. 14 78/DEL/2015 RELATED SERVICES PROVISION OF FAS SERVICES 4.57 METHOD: TNMM PLI: OP/TC 15.00% 10 14.37% PROVISION OF IT INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT SERVICES 5.50 METHOD: TNMM PLI: OP/TC 17.56% 4 17.26% REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES (PAID) 0.07 METHOD: TNMM PLI: OP/TC NOT APPLICABLE REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES (RECEIVED) 21.97 METHOD: TNMM PLI: OP/TC 5. THE LD. TPO DISAGREED WITH THE VARIOUS FILTERS U SED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE TP STUDY. THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS, WORKING S AND EVIDENCES PROVIDED DURING THE COURSE OF THE TP ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS, WAS CONSIDERED BY THE LD. TPO, AND THEREAFTER HE SELECT ED THE FINAL SET OF COMPARABLES BASED ON THE APPLICATION OF ADDITIONAL/ MODIFIED FILTERS IN ALL THREE SEGMENTS. THE FINAL COMPARABLE ADOPTED BY LD . TPO ARE AS UNDER: I. ENGINEERING DESIGN AND RELATED SERVICES S. NO. COMPANY NAME OP/COST (%)* 1. KIRLOSKAR CONSULTANTS LTD. 15.64% 2. MAHINDRA CONSULTING ENGINEERS LTD. 23.50% 3. TCE CONSULTING ENGINEERS LTD. 25.88% 4. IBI CHEMATUR LTD. 52.66% 5. KITCO LTD. 14.01% 6. CADES DIGITECH PRIVATE LTD. -5.71% MEAN 21.00% II. FINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING SUPPORT SERVICES S. NO. COMPANY NAME OP/COST (FOREX AS OPERATING) (%)* 1. ACCENTIA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 43.62% 4 ITA NO. 14 78/DEL/2015 2. COSMIC GLOBAL LTD. 18.28% 3. E4E HEALTHCARE LTD. 32.67% 4. FORTUNE INFOTECH LTD. 19.62% 5. IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD. 18.21% 6. INFOSYS BPO LTD. 31.61% 7. TCS E-SERVE INTERNATIONAL LTD. 51.51% 8. TCS E-SERVE LTD. 66.35% 9. JINDAL INTELLICOM LTD. 14.19% 10. MICROLAND LTD. -3.11% MEAN 29.30% III. IT INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT SERVICES S. NO. COMPANY NAME OP/COST (FOREX AS OPERATING) (%)* 1. ACCENTIA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 43.62% 2. COSMIC GLOBAL LTD. 18.28% 3. E4E HEALTHCARE LTD. 32.67% 4. FORTUNE INFOTECH LTD. 19.62% 5. IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD. 18.21% 6. INFOSYS BPO LTD. 31.61% 7. TCS E-SERVE INTERNATIONAL LTD. 51.51% 8. TCS E-SERVE LTD. 66.35% 9. JINDAL INTELLICOM LTD. 14.19% 10. MICROLAND LTD. -3.11% MEAN 29.30% 6. THE D. TPO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE PAYMENT REC EIVED FROM THE AE WAS NOT AS PER THE TERMS OF THE SERVICE AGREEMEN T. THE LD.TPO THEREFORE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVIDED BENEF IT TO ITS AE, BY WAY OF ADVANCEMENT OF INTEREST FREE LOAN IN THE GARB OF DE LAY OF RECEIPT OF RECEIVABLE. THE LD.TPO USED CUP METHOD BY SELECTING CREDIT PERIOD OF 30 DAYS AND APPLYING THE RATE OF 14.88%. 5 ITA NO. 14 78/DEL/2015 7. THE ADJUSTMENT MADE BY LD. TPO HAS BEEN PRESENTE D BELOW: S. NO. NATURE OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION APPELLANTS MARGIN ARMS LENGTH MARGIN DETERMINED BY LD. TPO ADJUSTMENT U/S 92CA (IN INR) 1. PROVISION OF ENGINEERING DESIGN AND RELATED SERVICES 13.04% 21.00% 8,05,09,189 2. PROVISION OF FAS SERVICES 15.00% 29.30% 54,91,653 3. PROVISION OF IT INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT SERVICES 17.56% 29.30% 56,83,008 4. OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLES N.A. 3,10,93,116 TOTAL 12,27,76,966 8. AGGRIEVED BY THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE L D.TPO, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE DRP. THE DRP DIRECTED AS FOLLOWS: I. ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES : THE LD. DRP ACCEPTED THE APPROACH AND THE COMPARABL E SET CONSIDERED BY LD. TPO. THE DRP ALSO DIRECTED THE LD. TPO TO I NCLUDE A COMPARABLE SELECTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING UB ENGINEERING LIMITED IF IT PASSED THE FILTERS APPLIED BY THE LD. TPO. SINCE THE COMPARAB LE WAS PASSING THE FILTERS, IT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY ACCEPTED IN THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER. II. IT INFRA SUPPORT SERVICES AND FAS SERVICES : 6 ITA NO. 14 78/DEL/2015 THE DRP ACCEPTED THE APPROACH AND THE COMPARABLE SE T CONSIDERED BY LD. TPO. ALL ADDITIONAL COMPARABLES PROPOSED BY TH E ASSESSEE IN THE FRESH SEARCH WERE REJECTED. ALSO, THE DRP ACCEPTED THE APPROACH OF THE LD. TPO WHICH WAS TO ADOPT THE SAME SET OF COMPARAB LES FOR BOTH THESE SEGMENTS. THE DRP DIRECTED THE LD. TPO/LD. ASSESSI NG OFFICER TO MAKE WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT. THE DRP ALSO CONFIRMED THE TP ADJUSTMENT MADE BY THE LD. TPO ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON INTER COMPANY RECEIVABLES. 9. THUS, PURSUANT TO THE DRPS DIRECTIONS, THE LD. AO ISSUED THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER. FOLLOWING ARE THE ARMS LENGTH MA RGINS AS PER TPO: ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES S. NO. COMPANY NAME WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTED OP/TC 1. KIRLOSKAR CONSULTANTS LTD. 11.85% 2. MAHINDRA CONSULTING ENGINEERS LTD. 23.55% 3. TCE CONSULTING ENGINEERS LTD. 26.23% 4. IBI CHEMATUR LTD. 58.24% 5. KITCO LTD. 36.18% 6. CADES DIGITECH PRIVATE LTD. 1.00% 7. UB ENGINEERING LTD. 11.65% MEAN 24.10% IT INFRA SUPPORT SERVICES AND FAS SERVICES : S. NO. COMPANY NAME WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTEDOP/TC 1. ACCENTIA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 41.24% 2. COSMIC GLOBAL LTD. 18.80% 3. E4E HEALTHCARE LTD. 30.41% 4. FORTUNE INFOTECH LTD. 20.89% 5. IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD. 24.43% 6. INFOSYS BPO LTD. 30.80% 7. TCS E-SERVE INTERNATIONAL LTD. 54.67% 7 ITA NO. 14 78/DEL/2015 8. TCS E-SERVE LTD. 63.88% 9. JINDAL INTELLICOM LTD. 13.43% 10. MICROLAND LTD. -1.05% MEAN 29.75% 10. THE FINAL ADJUSTMENTS MADE BY THE LD. AO ARE AS UNDER: S. NO. NATURE OF TRANSACTION ADJUSTMENT (IN RS.) 1. PROVISION OF ENGINEERING DESIGN AND RELATED SERVICES 11,18,75,610/- 2. PROVISION OF FAS SERVICES 58,61,844/- 3. PROVISION OF IT INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT SERVICES 57,02,197/- 4. OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLES 3,10.93,116/- TOTAL 15,45,32,767/- 11. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. AO, TH E ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. AO/LD. TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER/LD. DISPUTE RES OLUTION PANEL ERRED IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF INR 15,45,32,7 67/- TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY RE-COMPUTIN G THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION S PERTAINING TO ALL THREE SEGMENTS OF THE APPELLANT C OMPANY VIZ. ENGINEERING SERVICES, FINANCIAL SUPPORT AND IT INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT U/S 92 OF THE ACT. THUS, IN PASSING THE ORDER, THE LD. AO/LD. TPO/LD. DRP ERRED IN: 1.1REJECTING THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES ADOPTED BY TH E APPELLANT IN ITS TRANSFER PRICING DOCUMENTATION ON THE BASIS OF ADDITIONAL/MODIFIED QUANTITATIVE FILTERS WHICH L ACKED VALID AND SUFFICIENT REASONING. 8 ITA NO. 14 78/DEL/2015 1.2 ACCEPTING COMPANIES WHICH WERE FUNCTIONALLY NOT COMPARABLE TO THE APPELLANT. 1.3INCLUDING COMPANIES WITH HIGH/SUPERNORMAL MARGIN S AS COMPARABLES. 1.4NOT CONSIDERING THE CORRECT COMPUTATION OF OPERA TING MARGINS OF CERTAIN COMPARABLES. 1.5DENYING THE BENEFIT OF ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENTS ON A CCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN RISK PROFILE IN ARRIVING AT THE ARMS LENGTH MARGIN. 1.6THAT ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. AO/TPO/LD. DRP ERRED IN SELECTING THE CURRENT Y EAR (I.E. FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10) DATA FOR COMPARABILITY DESP ITE THE FACT THAT AT THE TIME OF PREPARATION OF TRANSFER PR ICING DOCUMENTATION BY THE APPELLANT, THE COMPLETE DATA F OR FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10 WAS NOT AVAILABLE WITHIN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. 2. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, IF COMPARABLES SELECTED THE LD. AO/TPO/DRP THAT DO NOT MEET THE PARAMETERS OF FUNCTIONAL COMPARABILITY ARE ACCEPTED, THEN THE COM PARABLES SELECTED BY THE APPELLANT THAT WERE REJECTED BY LD. AO/TPO/DRP ON ACCOUNT OF FUNCTIONAL COMPARABILITY M UST ALSO BE ACCEPTED. 3. THAT ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. AO/LD. TPO/LD. DRP ERRED IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF INR 3,10,93,116/- BY IMPUTING INTEREST ON RECEIVABLES F ROM THE AES BEYOND AN ADHOC CREDIT PERIOD AND APPLYING AN A DHOC INTEREST RATE. 4. THAT THE LD. AO HAS ERRED IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO INR 3,04,06,530/-. 5. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. AO HAS ERRED IN INITIATING PENALTY PRO CEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER, DE LETE, RESCIND, FORGO OR WITHDRAW ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEA L EITHER BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFO RE THE 9 ITA NO. 14 78/DEL/2015 HONBLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INTERE ST OF THE NATURAL JUSTICE. THE AFORESAID GROUNDS ARE MUTUALL Y EXCLUSIVE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 11.1 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. ON A CAR EFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON REC ORD AND THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ONLY ISSUE THAT IS ARGUED BE FORE US IS THE CORRECTNESS OF THE COMPARABLES CONSIDERED IN THE FI NAL ASSESSMENT ORDER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 12. WE WOULD NOW EXAMINE THE FACTS AND ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIES ON EACH OF THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES IN DISPUTE. 1) ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES COMPARABLES INCLUDED BY THE LD.DRP/TPO: 1) KITCO LIMITED : 12.1 THE COMPANY WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1972 BY INDUSTR IAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, OTHER NATIONAL AND STATE LEVEL FINAN CIAL INSTITUTIONS, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA AND 7 PUBLIC SECTOR BANKS FOR RENDERING SERVICES TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS, PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKIN GS (PSUS), LOCAL BODIES, ENTREPRENEURS, ETC. THE COMPANYS MAIN FUNC TIONS ARE TO RENDER PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL CONSULTANCY ASSISTANCE TO BA NKS (APPRAISAL OF PROJECTS IN PRIORITY SECTORS) AND TO ENTREPRENEURS OPERATING IN SME SECTOR (PREPARATION OF PROJECT REPORT, MARKET STUDIES AND CONDUCTING TRAINING PROGRAMS). HOWEVER, OVER THE YEARS KITCO HAS EVOL VED INTO A MULTI- FUNCTIONAL AND MULTI-DISCIPLINARY ORGANIZATION AND HAS STARTED OFFERING 10 ITA NO. 1 478/DEL/2015 CONSULTANCY SERVICE FROM CONCEPT TO COMMISSIONING . AS PORTFOLIO OF SERVICES OFFERED BY KITCO CURRENTLY INCLUDES THE FO LLOWING: PROJECT CONSULTANCY; DETAILED DESIGN ENGINEERING AND PROJECT EXECUTION; TECHNICAL SERVICES; ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING; AND HRD CONSULTANCY 12.2 THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY SUBMITS THAT KITCO IS A 100% GO VERNMENT OWNED UNDERTAKING, RENDERING SERVICES PRIMARILY TO CENTRAL/STATE GOVERNMENT UNDERTAKING AND PSUS. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT MOST OF THE CLIENTS OR PR OJECTS UNDERTAKEN BY THIS COMPANY ARE EITHER FOR STATE GOVERNMENT OR GOVERNME NT RUN INSTITUTIONS. THE MAJORITY REVENUE (AND PROFITABILITY) OF THIS CO MPANY COMES FROM GOVERNMENT (STATE OR CENTER) RUN PROJECTS AND THAT THE COMPANY DERIVES BENEFIT OUT OF ITS PARENTAL RELATION WITH THE GOVERNMENT IN GETTING CONTRACT. IN OTHER WORDS, THE COMPANY IS GETTING TH E BENEFIT OF PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT IN OBTAINING CONTRACTS FROM GOVERNMENT/GOVERNMENT UNDERTAKINGS. THIS INEVITABL Y IMPACTS THE PROFIT MARGINS OF THE SAID COMPARABLE AND CANNOT BE SAID TO BE INDICATIVE OF A FREE MARKET ECONOMY WHERE THE OTHER COMPARABLE S AND THE ASSESSEE OPERATES. 12.3 IN THIS REGARD THE ASSESSEE PLACED ITS RELIANC E ON THE RULING OF M/S THYSSENKRUPP INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ITA N O. 6460/MUM/2012 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD ASUNDER: 11 ITA NO. 1 478/DEL/2015 WE FIND IT AS UNDISPUTED THAT ENGINEERS INDIA LIMI TED IS A GOVERNMENT COMPANY. IT HAS SEVERAL SEGMENTS WHICH ALSO INCLUDE TURNKEY PROJECT PAGE 700 OF THE PAPER BOO K IS A COPY OF ANNUAL REPORT OF ENGINEERS INDIA LIMITED ON TURN KEY PROJECT. IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE REVENUE HAS ARISEN FROM COM PLETING PARAXYLENE PLANT OF IOCL AND FURTHER THAT COMPANY I S ENGAGED IN EXECUTION OF OTHER UNIT OF IOCLS PANIPAT NAPHTH A CRACKER PROJECT. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THIS CASE SHOU LD NOT HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE LIST OF FINAL COMPARABLES FOR TWO REASONS. FIRST REASON IS THAT PROFIT MOTIVE IS NOT A RELEVAN T CONSIDERATION IN CASE OF GOVERNMENT UNDERTAKINGS. MANY GOVERNMENT UNDERTAKINGS EVEN OPERATE ON LOSSES IN FURTHERANCE OF THE SOCIAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE GOVERN MENT. THE SECOND REASON IS THAT ENGINEERS INDIA LIMITED EARNE D INCOME FROM TURNKEY PROJECT BY SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETING THE PROJECT OF IOCL AND OTHER PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKINGS. IN THAT SENSE OF THE MATTER, THE RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS ARE MUCH MORE THAN THE FILTER OF 25%. WE, THEREFORE, ORDER FOR THE EX CLUSION OF THIS CASE FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. UNQUOTE [ EMPHASIS SUPPLIED ] 12.5 IN THE ABOVE RULING, THE COMPARABLE M/S. ENGIN EERS INDIA LIMITED WAS REJECTED PRIMARILY ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS WO RKING FOR GOVERNMENT/PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKINGS AND SINCE THE COMPANY ALSO BEING A GOVERNMENT OWNED ENTERPRISE; THE TRANSACTIO NS TANTAMOUNT TO RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS. THE SAME IS TRUE FOR T HE SAID COMPARABLE AS KITCO LTD., TRANSACTIONS ARE PRIMARILY WITH GOVERNM ENT OWNED ENTERPRISES.APPLYING THE PREPOSITION LAID DOWN IN T HE CASE OF M/S THYSSENKRUPP INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (SUPRA), WE HOLD THAT KITCO LTD., CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS A COMPARABLE COMP ANY. HENCE THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE ELEMINATED. 12 ITA NO. 1 478/DEL/2015 2) TCE CONSULTING ENGINEERS LTD. 12.6 THE COMPARABLE COMPANY IS INVOLVED IN ACTIVI TIES BEYOND ENGINEERING DESIGN. IT IS ENGAGED IN ACTIVITIES TH AT EXTEND FROM CONCEPT TO COMMISSIONING. WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE PROVIDES SER VICES AS A CAPTIVE UNIT TO ITS OVERSEAS AES. THE DIVERSIFIED FUNCTION S OF THIS COMPARABLE COMPANY INCLUDE PRE-PROJECT ACTIVITIES, PROCUREMENT ASSISTANCE, PROJECT MANAGEMENT, COMMISSIONING AND COORDINATION, INSPECT ION, CONSTRUCTION AND SUPERVISION. FURTHER, THERE IS NO SEGMENTAL AC COUNTING IN THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMPANY WHICH PROVIDES PROFITABILITY, FOR THE ENGINEERING DESIGN SEGMENT. HENCE THE SAME CANNOT BE ACCEPTED A S A COMPARABLE. 3) IBI CHEMATUR LTD. 12.7 THE COMPARABLE COMPANY IS INVOLVED IN ACTIV ITIES BEYOND ENGINEERING DESIGN WHICH ASSESSEE PROVIDES. APART FROM DETAILED ENGINEERING, THE COMPARABLE COMPANY, ALSO PROVIDES PROJECT PLANNING, MANAGEMENT SERVICES, PROCUREMENT ASSISTANCE, PROJEC T MANAGEMENT, COMMISSIONING AND COORDINATION, INSPECTION, CONSTRU CTION AND SUPERVISION ETC. FURTHER, THERE IS NO SEGMENTAL AC COUNTING AVAILABLE IN THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMPANY WHICH PROVIDES PRO FITABILITY FOR THE ENGINEERING DESIGN SEGMENT. THE COMPARABLE COMPANY UNDERTAKES SUBSTANTIAL R&D ACTIVITIES (R&D EXPENSE 5.41% OF TU RNOVER) WHICH IS NOT A FUNCTION PERFORMED BY THE ASSESSEE. HENCE THI S COMPANY CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS A COMPARABLE. 13 ITA NO. 1 478/DEL/2015 NOW WE TAKE-UP THE COMPARABLES SELECTED BY THE ASSE SSEE COMPANY BUT REJECTED BY DRP/LD.TPO, WHICH ARE IN DISPUTE: 4) ACCUSPEED ENGINEERING SERVICES INDIA LIMITED 12.8 THE LD. TPO IN HIS ORDER, HAS REJECTED THE SAID COMPARABLE BASED ON ITS FUNCTIONAL PROFILE, HOLDING THAT THE COMPARA BLE COMPANY IS INVOLVED IN SOFTWARE SERVICES. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THIS COMPARABLE COMPANY IS NOT INTO SOFTWARE SERVICES, INSTEAD, IS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING CONSULTANCY ACTIVITIES IN ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS AND SERVICES COVERING DESIGN, DETAILED ENGINEERING, PROJECT CONSTRUCTION & MANAGEMENT. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THIS COMPARABLE COMPANY PROVID ES ENGINEERING DESIGN SOLUTIONS, AND OTHER RELATED SERVICES, WHICH IS FUNCTIONALLY SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE ASSESSEE. WE OBSERVE THAT THE DRP HA S NOT GIVEN ANY REASONS FOR REJECTING THIS COMPARABLE. ON EXAMINATI ON OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR. HENCE WE DIRECT THE A.O TO INCLUDE THIS COMPANY AS A COMP ARABLE. 5) DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED 12.9 THE LD.TPO/DRP REJECTED THE COMPARABLE COMP ANY ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS FUNCTIONALLY DIFFERENT, WITHOUT P ROVIDING ANY REASON THEREOF. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THIS COMPARABLE C OMPANY PROVIDES ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY SERVICES FOR THE ENTIRE GAM UT OF PROJECT ENGINEERING AND OTHER PERTINENT ACTIVITIES NAMELY, VENDORS DESIGN AND DRAWING REVIEW, DETAILED ENGINEERING, PROJECT MANAG EMENT, CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND SITE SUPERVISION, SITE SELECTION & S ITE SURVEY, ETC. WE OBSERVE THAT THE DRP HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REASONS FOR REJECTING THIS 14 ITA NO. 1 478/DEL/2015 COMPARABLE. ON EXAMINATION OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR. HENCE WE DIRECT THE A.O TO INCLUDE THIS COMPANY AS A COMPARABLE. 6) M N DASTUR & CO. PRIVATE LIMITED 12.10 THE LD. TPO/DRP REJECTED THIS COMPARABLE COMPANY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ANNUAL REPORT FOR F.Y. 2009-10 IS N OT AVAILABLE IN PUBLIC DOMAIN. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE ANNUAL REPORT FOR F.Y. 2009-10 OF THIS COMPARABLE COMPANY IS NOT AVAILABLE , THIS COMPARABLE COMPANY IS FUNCTIONALLY SIMILAR AS IT PROVIDES SERV ICES RELATED TO ENGINEERING PROJECTS LIKE FEASIBILITY STUDIES, DESI GN & ENGINEERING, CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, PROJECT MANAGEMENT, INSPEC TION, OPERATIONAL ASSISTANCE AND BUSINESS & TECHNOLOGY CONSULTING. TH E LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT, ANNUAL REPORT FOR F.Y.2010-11IS AVAILABLE ON THE DATABASE OF CAPITALINE PLUS. IT IS RELEVANT TO NOTE THAT THE LD . TPO/DRP HAS ACCEPTED M N DASTUR & CO. PVT. LTD., AS A COMPARABLE IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANC ES, WE DIRECT THE A.O TO INCLUDE THIS COMPANY AS A COMPARABLE. 7) MOTT MACDONALD PRIVATE LIMITED 12.11 THE LD.TPO HAS REJECTED THE COMPANY AS A C OMPARABLE ON THE GROUND OF BEING WIDELY DIVERSIFIED AND THAT SEGMENT AL INFORMATION WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THIS COMPA RABLE COMPANY IS INVOLVED IN THE PROVISION OF MULTI-DISCIPLINARY MAN AGEMENT AND ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIKE BUSINESS ADVI CE FOR DEVELOPMENT PLANNING TO ENGINEERING DESIGN TO PROJECT MANAGEMEN T. IT IS ENGAGED IN 15 ITA NO. 1 478/DEL/2015 PLANNING, DEVELOPING AND DELIVERING PROJECTS ACROSS MANY SECTORS SUCH AS ENERGY, INDUSTRY, WATER AND ENVIRONMENT TO TRANSPOR T, BUILDINGS, URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. WE OBSERVE T HAT THE LD.DRP HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REASONS FOR REJECTING THIS COMPARABLE . WE OBSERVE THAT THE FUNCTIONS OF THIS COMPARABLE COMPANY ARE DIVERSIFIE D IN NATURE. AS WE HAVE REJECTED COMPANY LIKE TEC ON SIMILAR GROUND, T HIS COMPANY ALSO CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS A COMPARABLE. HENCE WE DIREC T THE A.O NOT TO INCLUDE THIS COMPANY AS A COMPARABLE IT INFRA & FA SEGMENT 13. IN RESPECT OF IT INFRA & FA SEGMENT, THE COM PARABLES SELECTED BY THE LD. TPO ARE COMMON. 13.1 IN THE IT INFRA SEGMENT THE ASSESSEE MONITORS AND M ANAGES VARIOUS IT INFRASTRUCTURE COMPONENTS SUCH AS SERVER S, NETWORKS, STORAGE EQUIPMENT, MANAGING ETC. THE SERVICES INCLUDE DATA CENTRE AND SYSTEM MANAGEMENT, INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT, WEB HOSTING AND INTERNET EXCESS, DESKTOP SOLUTION ETC. 13.2 IN THE FA SEGMENT, THE FUNCTIONS OF THE APP ELLANT COMPANY ARE, INVOICE PROCESSING, HELP DESK SUPPORT, ACCOUNT CLOS ING AND MANAGEMENT REPORTING, TAX ADVISORY SERVICES, MANAGEMENT OF FUN D. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE LD. TPO/ DRP HAS ACCEPTED CERTAI N COMPARABLES, WHICH PERFORM ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS AS COM PARED TO ASSESSEES FAS AND IT INFRA SEGMENT, AND HAVE EXTRA-ORDINARY C IRCUMSTANCES BASED ON WHICH THEY SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED. 16 ITA NO. 1 478/DEL/2015 13.3 WE WOULD NOW EXAMINE EACH OF THE COMPARABLE COMPANY IN DISPUTE TO ARRIVE AT A CONCLUSION. COMPARABLES INCLUDED BY THE LD.TPO/DRP BUT DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE: 1) TCS E-SERVE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED & TCS E-SERVE LIMITED THIS COMPANY HAS BEEN SELECTED BY THE LD.TPO AS A C OMPARABLE. THIS COMPANY UNDERTAKES, CUSTOMER SERVICE, TRANSACTION P ROCESSES, COLLECTIONS, RISK MANAGEMENT, AND ANALYTICS, AND HA S CREATED A LOT OF APPLICATIONS WHICH ARE IN THE NATURE OF INTELLECTUA L PROPERTY IN TERMS OF RECONCILIATION SOFTWARE, FUND TRANSFERS, ETC. THE C OMPANY ALSO UNDERTAKES SOFTWARE TESTING AND VALIDATION ACTIVITIES. POSSES SION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS HAS TO BE FACTORED IF SUCH A COMPAN Y IS TO BE TAKEN AS COMPARABLE. THIS CANNOT BE DONE UNLESS THERE IS AP PROPRIATE DATA. FURTHER, FROM THE TP STUDY WE OBSERVE THAT, THIS CO MPANY IS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF TCS E SERVE INTERNATIONAL LTD. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THIS COMPANY HAS MADE PAYMENTS TOWARDS USE OF TATA BRAND. CONSEQUENTIALLY USE OF THE TCS BRAND HA S SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASED THE OPERATING PROFITS POST ACQUISITION. H ENCE WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THIS COMPANY CANNOT BE TAKEN AS A COMP ARABLE. WE THEREFORE DIRECT TO EXCLUDE THIS COMPARABLE. 2) ACCENTIA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED THIS COMPANY HAS BEEN INCLUDED BY THE LD.TPO AS A C OMPARABLE. FUNCTIONALLY, ACCENTIA TECHNOLOGIES LTD., IS INTO D EVELOPMENT OF SOFTWARE PRODUCTS FOR HEALTHCARE. IT IS SUBMITTED B Y THE LD.AR THAT 17 ITA NO. 1 478/DEL/2015 ACCENTIA TECHNOLOGIES LTD IS ALSO ENGAGED INTO DIVE RSIFIED ACTIVITIES SUCH AS KNOWLEDGE PROCESS OUTSOURCING(KPO), LEGAL P ROCESS OUTSOURCING(LPO), DATA PROCESS OUTSOURCING(DTO), HI GH END SOFTWARE SERVICES. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED BY THE LD.AR THAT SE GMENTAL INFORMATION IN RESPECT OF THIS COMPANY IS NOT AVAILABLE. IT HAS B EEN FURTHER BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THIS COMPANY HAS BEEN REJECTED BY T HE LD.TPO IN THE EARLIER YEAR. THE COMPANY HAS ALSO HAD BUSINESS RES TRUCTURING DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THEREBY GIVING RISE TO EXT RAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES. FOR ALL THESE REASONS WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXCLUDE THIS COMPANY AS A COMPARABLE. 3) E4E HEALTHCARE BUSINESS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED THIS COMPANY HAS BEEN INCLUDED BY THE LD.TPO AS A C OMPARABLE. FUNCTIONALLY THE COMPANY IS INTO HEALTH CARE OUTSOU RCING SERVICES AND IN ADDITION IT ALSO RENDERS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVI CES. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT SEGMENTAL INFORMATION IN RESPECT OF T HIS COMPANY IS NOT AVAILABLE. THE COMPANY IS ALSO A 100% EOU, UNDER ST PI GUIDELINES. WE ARE THEREFORE INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS COMPANY SHOULD BE EXCLUDED AS A COMPARABLE. HENCE WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DO SO. COMPARABLE COMPANY SELECTED BY THE ASSESSEE, BUT RE JECTED BY DRP/LD.TPO: 1) OMEGA HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD. 18 ITA NO. 1 478/DEL/2015 LD. TPO HAS REJECTED THE COMPANY ON THE BASIS THAT THE ANNUAL REPORT IS NOT AVAILABLE IN PUBLIC DOMAIN. HOWEVER, WE FIND T HAT THE DATA CAN BE EXTRACTED FROM THE CAPITALINE DATABASE. THE COMPANY IS INVOLVED IN THE PROVISION OF OFFSHOR E HEALTHCARE BUSINESS OUTSOURCING SERVICES, LIKE MEDICAL CODING, BILLING, ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT, CLAIMS PROCESSING, AND HEALT HCARE REVENUE MANAGEMENT. IT ALSO PROVIDES SERVICES TO AR MANAGE MENT COMPANIES, AND THEIR HOSPITAL CLIENTS, FOR THEIR CREDIT BALANC E ACCOUNT, REGULAR ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE AND FACILITY CODING NEEDS. IT I S NOTICED THAT THIS COMPANY IS BASICALLY INTO ITES BUSINESS. THE LD. TP O HAS REJECTED THE COMPANY ON THE GROUND THAT FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF T HE COMPANY WAS NOT AVAILABLE. HOWEVER, THE FINANCIAL DATA OF THE COMP ANY IS AVAILABLE ON THE DATABASE. THE LD. TPO HOWEVER DID NOT GIVE PROP ER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE INCLUSION OF THIS COMPANY AS A COMPARABLE. THE ISSUE WAS CARRIED FURTHER BEFORE TH E LD.DRP, AND THE LD.DRP ALSO DID NOT COMMENT UPON THE ECONOMIC ANALY SIS OF THE COMPANY. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE OF SELEC TING THIS COMPANY, TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE TPO AS A COMPARABLE, AND TO IN CLUDE THE SAME IN THE EVENT IT SATISFIES ALL THE FILTERS APPLIED BY T HE LD.TPO. 2) TECHPROCESS SOLUTIONS LTD. (PROCESSING SERVICES SEGMENT) LD. TPO HAS REJECTED THE COMPANY ON THE BASIS THAT CURRENT YEAR DATABASE ARE NOT AVAILABLE. IT IS OBSERVED THAT TH E PROCESSING SERVICE SEGMENT OF THIS COMPANY IS INVOLVED IN THE PROVISIO N OF TRANSACTING PROCESSING SERVICES, DOCUMENT PROCESSING SERVICES, ACTIVATION SERVICES 19 ITA NO. 1 478/DEL/2015 AND SYSTEM INTEGRATION SERVICES AND IS ALSO INVOLVE D IN THE PROVISION OF COMPREHENSIVE PAYMENTS PROCESSING SOLUTIONS LIKE EC S PROCESSING AND CHEQUE PROCESSING SERVICES. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTE D THAT THE ANNUAL REPORT FOR FY 2009-10 IS AVAILABLE IN PUBLIC DOMAIN , AND CAN BE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF MARGIN COMPUTATION. THE LD. TPO HAS REJECTED THE COMPANY ON THE GROUND THAT FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF T HE COMPANY WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE ISSUE WAS CARRIED FURTHER BEFORE THE LD.DRP, AND THE LD.DRP ALSO DID NOT COMMENT UPON THE ECONOMIC ANALY SIS OF THE COMPANY. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE OF SELEC TING THIS COMPANY BE CONSIDERED BY THE TPO AS A COMPARABLE, AND TO INCLU DE THE SAME IN THE EVENT IT SATISFIES ALL THE FILTERS APPLIED BY THE L D.TPO. GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 STANDS DISPOSED OFF ACCORDINGLY. ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF RECEIVABLES 14.7 DURING THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE TPO, HE OBSERVED THAT PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF SALES TO THE AE, IS REA LIZED AFTER A SIGNIFICANT TIME PERIOD. THE LD.TPO ASCERTAINED THA T PAYMENT FOR INVOICES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN PAID W ITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME AS PROVIDED IN THE SERVICE AGREEMENT AND ACCOR DINGLY TREATED THE DELAYED PAYMENTS AS LOAN FACILITY ADVANCED TO THE A ES. THE LD.TPO CHARGED 14.88% INTEREST FOR THE DELAYED PERIOD, BEY OND A PERIOD OF 30 DAYS. THE LD. DRP UPHELD THE ADJUSTMENTS MADE BY THE LD.T PO. 14.8. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS PERTAIN ING TO PROVISION OF SUPPORT SERVICES TO ITS AES. IN THIS REGARDS, THE DETAILS OF THE INVOICES 20 ITA NO. 1 478/DEL/2015 RAISED AND THE PAYMENT RECEIVED WITH DATED WERE SUB MITTED BEFORE THE TPO/DRP. THE LD.AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THOUGHT THERE WAS NO CREDIT PERIOD THAT WAS SPECIFIED IN THE SERVICE AGREEMENT, HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE HAD AGREED A CREDIT PERIOD OF 60 DAYS WITH ITS AES . THE LD.AR SUBMITS THAT IT HAS SUFFICIENT CASH BALANCE TO MANAGE ITS C ASH FLOW REQUIREMENTS. 14.9. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES N OT EARN ANY INTEREST ON THE CURRENT ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH THE BANK. EX CEPT FOR INTEREST EARNED FROM FIXED ASSETS, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EARN ED ANY INTEREST, ON ANY ADVANCES PAID TO THIRD PARTIES. THE LD.AR FURTH ER SUBMITTED THAT BEING A CAPTIVE UNDERTAKING, THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT RENDER SIMILAR SERVICES TO ANY OTHER CONCERN. HE SUBMITTED THAT, E XCESS CREDIT PERIOD ARISES, ONLY WHEN THERE IS A STANDARD CREDIT PERIOD FOR THE SERVICES SOLD AT THE SAME PRICE TO INDEPENDENT ENTERPRISES. HE SU BMITTED THAT THE COST OF FUNDS BLOCKED IN THE CREDIT PERIOD WAS INBUILT I N THE SALE PRICE. 14.10. THE LD.AR RELIES ON THE JUDGMENT OF INDO AME RICAN JEWELLERY IN ITA NO. 5872/M/2009, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE TRANSACTION OF SALE AND LENDING ARE DISTINCTLY SET OUT AS PER SECT ION 92 OF THE ACT. THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER HELD THAT INTEREST INCOME IS ASSOC IATED MORE WITH LENDING OR BORROWING OF MONEY AND NOT WITH SALE. TH E TRIBUNAL FURTHER HELD WHILE DETERMINING THE ALP OF SALE TRANSACTION, ALL RELEVANT ASPECTS, INCLUDING CREDIT PERIOD ALLOWED, ARE TAKEN INTO CON SIDERATION AND THAT INTEREST ASPECT IS EMBEDDED IN THE SALE PRICE. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THERE CAN BE NO SEPARATE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION OF INTEREST, ON OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLES AND THAT EARLY OF LATE REAL IZATION OF THE SALE 21 ITA NO. 1 478/DEL/2015 PROCEEDS IS INCIDENTAL TO TRANSACTION OF SALE. THE L D.AR ALSO PLACES HIS RELIANCE ON THE DELHI TRIBUNAL DECISION IN THE CASE OF KUSUM HEALTHCARE PVT.LTD., REPORTED IN TS-129-ITAT-2015(DEL)-TP. 14.11. THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW. 15. FROM THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES WE OBSERVE AS UNDER; 15.1. IT IS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A DEBT FREE COMPANY. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE TO PRES UME THAT, BORROWED FUNDS HAVE BEEN UTILIZED TO PASS ON THE FACILITY TO ITS AES. THE REVENUE HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S BEEN FOUND PAYING INTEREST TO ITS CREDITORS OR SUPPLIERS ON DELAYED P AYMENTS. 16. IN LIEU OF THE DISCUSSIONS AND THE RATIO LAID D OWN IN THE CASE OF KUSUM HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., WE DIRECT THAT NO SEPAR ATE ADJUSTMENT FOR INTEREST ON RECEIVABLES ARE WARRANTED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS THERE BY A LLOWED. THE ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS DISPOSED OFF ACCORDING LY. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21.12. 2015 SD/- SD/- (J. S. REDDY) (BEENA PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 21.12.2015 *KAVITA, P.S. COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 22 ITA NO. 1 478/DEL/2015 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 09.10.2015/16.11.2015 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 12.10.2015/17.11.2015 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 21.12.15 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 21.12.15 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 23.12.15 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD 23 ITA NO. 1 478/DEL/2015 CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.