Optiva India Technologies Private Limited, (Formerly known as Radknee (India) Technologies Private Limited), Pune V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle - 3, Pune

ITA 15/PUN/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5416 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 22-09-2021
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 07-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DAR
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction
• Section: 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH, C PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER . / ITA NO.15/PUN/2019 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 OPTIVA INDIA TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS REDKNEE (INDIA) TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED), C/O. AWFIS SPACE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., GROUND FLOOR, UNIT NO.4, W-WING, BUSINESS@MANTRI, NAGAR ROAD, LOHEGAON, VIMAN NAGAR, PUNE 411 014 PAN : AACCR7002A VS. DCIT , CIRCLE -3, P UNE APPELLANT RESPONDENT / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 10-10-2018 PASSED U/S.143(3) R. W.S.144C(13) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER ALSO CALLED THE A CT) IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE TRANSFE R PRICING ADDITION OF RS.13,48,02,885/-. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN RENDERING SOFTWARE SUPPORT SERVICES . A RETURN ASSESSEE BY SHRI DARPAN KIRPALANI REVENUE BY SHRI ANURAG SRIVASTAVA DATE OF HEARING 22-09-2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 23-09-2021 ITA NO.15/PUN/2019 OPTIVA INDIA TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED 2 WAS FILED DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.32,84,75,510/-. CE RTAIN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WERE REPORTED IN FORM NO. 3CEB. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) MADE A REFERENCE TO THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO) FOR DETERMINING THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE (ALP) O F THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS. WE ARE CONCERNED ONLY WITH THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION OF PROVISION OF SOFTWARE RESEARCH AN D DEVELOPMENT AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES WITH TRANSACTED VA LUE OF RS.94,89,36,023/-. THE ASSESSEE APPLIED THE TRANSA CTIONAL NET MARGIN METHOD (TNMM) FOR DEMONSTRATING THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION TO BE AT ALP. PROFIT LEVEL INDICATOR (PLI) OF OPERA TING PROFIT TO TOTAL COST (OP/TC) WAS WORKED OUT AT 13.39%. WITH THE HELP OF CERTAIN COMPARABLES, THE ASSESSEE DECLARED THE INTER NATIONAL TRANSACTION TO BE AT ALP. THE TPO MADE CERTAIN ALTERATIONS TO TH E ASSESSEES PLI AND REWORKED OUT THE RATIO OF OP TO TC AT 13 .12%. THE SET OF COMPARABLES CHOSEN BY THE ASSESSEE ALSO UND ERWENT CHANGE WITH THEIR NEW AVERAGE ADJUSTED PLI AT 24.39%. THIS LED TO RECOMMENDING THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT OF RS.13,48,0 2,885/-. THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNSUCCESSFUL BEFORE THE DISPUTE R ESOLUTION PANEL (DRP). THAT IS HOW, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ITA NO.15/PUN/2019 OPTIVA INDIA TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED 3 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON THE APPLICATION OF THE TNMM AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT C HALLENGED THE ALTERATIONS IN ITS PLI MADE BY THE TPO FROM 13.39% TO 13.12 %. TO BE MORE PRECISE, THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED THE INCLUSION OF CERTAIN COMPANIES IN THE FINAL SET OF COMPARABLES. 5. BEFORE EMBARKING UPON THE COMPARABILITY OR OTHERWISE OF THE COMPANIES CHALLENGED IN APPEAL, IT WOULD BE BEFITTING TO FIRST UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF ACTIVITY CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSE E. THE TPO HAS RECORDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSIN ESS OF RENDERING SOFTWARE SUPPORT SERVICES. WE HAVE GONE THROUG H THE AGREEMENT DATED 01-04-2013 BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE (AE) NAMELY, REDKNEE, INC, (RI) C ANADA, WHOSE COPY HAS BEEN PROVIDED AT PAGE 394 ONWARDS OF TH E PAPER BOOK. THE AGREEMENT PROVIDES THAT THE RI (I.E. THE ASSESS EES AE) IS A GLOBAL PROVIDER OF OSS/BSS SOFTWARE PRODUCTS SOLUTIONS AND SERVICES TO THE TELECOMMUNICATION INDUSTRY AND IS THE OWNER OF ALL APPLICABLE RIGHTS, TITLES AND INTEREST IN THE TECHNOLOGY (ENTIRE TECHNOLOGY PLATFORM OWNED BY RI, AS EXISTING ON THE EFFECTIV E DAY, COMPRISING OF THE PRODUCTS AND RI INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY). ON THE ITA NO.15/PUN/2019 OPTIVA INDIA TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED 4 OTHER HAND, THE ASSESSEE IS A SUBSIDIARY AND IS IN THE BUSIN ESS OF PERFORMING, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTRACT RESEARCH AND DEV ELOPMENT (R&D) SERVICES. THE TERM SERVICES HAS BEEN DEFINED IN THE AGREEMENT UNDER CLAUSE 1.10 TO MEAN THE R&D SERVICES PER FORMED BY SUBSIDIARY FOR AND ON BEHALF OF RI AND INCLUDES, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO, UPDATES, PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS, ENHANCEMENTS, MODIFICA TIONS, AND CUSTOMIZATIONS. CLAUSE 3 OF THE AGREEMENT STATES THAT THE A E GRANTED LICENSES TO THE ASSESSEE TO USE THE TECHNOLOGY FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF PERFORMING THE SERVICE. THERE IS A BAR ON THE LICENSEE TO MAKE AVAILABLE, TRANSFER OR OTHERWISE DISCLOSE THE TECHNOLOG Y TO THIRD PARTIES. CLAUSE 4 OF THE AGREEMENT DEALS WITH OWNERSHIP OF THE WORK DONE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF PROVIDING THE SERVICES. IT STATES THAT ALL THE RELATED INFORMATION, INCLUDING ANY DERIVATIVE WOR KS, IMPROVEMENTS OR MODIFICATIONS CREATED BY SUBSIDIARY IN THE CO URSE OF PROVIDING THE SERVICES, IS PROPRIETARY TO RI (I.E. THE A E) AND THAT ALL RIGHTS THERETO, INCLUDING ALL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS WILL VE ST IN RI. ON GOING THROUGH THE ABOVE CLAUSES OF THE AGREE MENT, IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT THE NATURE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION IS THAT OF PROVISION OF CONTRACT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO ITS AE, WHICH ARE UTILIZED BY THE LATTER IN ITS BUSINESS OF SOFTWARE PR ODUCTS AND SOLUTIONS. WITH THE ABOVE BACKDROP OF THE NATURE OF AC TIVITY ITA NO.15/PUN/2019 OPTIVA INDIA TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED 5 CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE, WE NOW PROCEED TO DETERMINE THE COMPARABILITY OR OTHERWISE OF THE COMPANIES CHALLENGED BEFO RE US AD SERIATIM. (1) PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LTD. : 6. THE TPO INCLUDED THIS COMPANY IN THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. THE ASSESSEES OBJECTIONS ABOUT THE FUNCTIONAL DISSIMILARITY D ID NOT WEIGH WITH THE TPO. THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNSUCCESSFUL BE FORE THE DRP AS WELL. 7. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND GONE THROUGH THE RELEVA NT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE OBSERVE FROM THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THIS COMPANY, A COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED AT PAGE 77 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THAT IT ACQUIRED A COMPANY CALLED CLOUDSQUADS, INC THR OUGH STOCK ACQUISITION IN FEBRUARY, 2014. WITHOUT EXAMINING THE FUNCTIONAL SIMILARITY OR DISSIMILARITY OF THIS COMPANY, WE FIND THAT THE EXTRAORDINARY FINANCIAL EVENT OF ACQUISITION OF ANOTHER CO MPANY TAKING PLACE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS RENDER ED IT NON- COMPARABLE. 8. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN PR. CIT VS. APTARA TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD. (2019) 410 ITR 100 (BOM.) HAS UPHELD THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN EXCLUDING AN OTHERWISE FUNCTIONALLY COMPARABLE COMPANY DUE TO EXTRAORDINARY EVENTS LIKE MERGER ETC. ITA NO.15/PUN/2019 OPTIVA INDIA TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED 6 THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN PETRO ARALDITE P. LTD. VS. DCIT (2013) 154 TTJ 176 (MUM) HAS ALSO HELD THAT A COMPANY CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS COMPARABLE BECAUSE OF EXCEPTIONA L FINANCIAL RESULTS DUE TO MERGER/DEMERGER ETC. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN AMERIPRISE INDIA PVT LTD [TS-875-HC-2016(DEL)-TP] HAS DISMISSED THE REVENUES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN WHICH CERTAIN COMPANIES WERE EXCLUDED ON ACCOUN T OF EXTRAORDINARY EVENTS. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSIO N, IT IS PALPABLE THAT A COMPANY WITH EXTRAORDINARY FINANCIAL EVENTS O F ACQUISITION AND MERGER/DEMERGER OCCURRING DURING THE YEAR, CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS COMPARABLE. SINCE PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LTD. UNDERWENT SUCH EXTRAORDINARY FINANCIAL EVENT DURING THE YE AR DUE TO ACQUISITION OF CLOUDSQUAD INC., WE DIRECT TO EXCLUDE IT FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. (2) THIRDWARE SOLUTIONS LTD. : 9. THE TPO INCLUDED THIS COMPANY IN THE LIST OF COMPARABLE. THE ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO SUCH INCLUSION ON THE BASIS OF FUNCTION AL DISSIMILARITY, WHICH DID NOT CONVINCE THE TPO. NO REPRIEVE W AS ALLOWED BY THE DRP. 10. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GOING THROU GH THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND FROM THE ANNUAL REPO RT OF THIS ITA NO.15/PUN/2019 OPTIVA INDIA TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED 7 COMPANY, A COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED IN THE PAPER B OOK, THAT ITS REVENUE CONSISTS MAINLY OF SALE OF USER LICENSES. IN THE PR OFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, THE MAIN ITEM IS `REVENUE FROM SALE OF PRODUC TS WITH THE VALUE OF RS.20,675.74 LAKHS. IN FACT, `REVENUE FRO M SALE OF SERVICES HAS BEEN SHOWN AT NIL. THIS SHOWS THAT THE COM PANY IS INTO THE BUSINESS OF SOFTWARE PRODUCTS AND NOT RENDERING THE S OFTWARE SERVICES. THIS FACT IS FURTHER CORROBORATED FROM THE NOTE G IVEN UNDER THE HEAD `REVENUE RECOGNITION, THAT: `. . . . . . . . . . REVENUE FROM SALE OF USER LICENSES FOR SOFTWARE APPLICATIONS IS RECOGNIZED ON E- DELIVERY OF SOFTWARE LICENSE KEY TO END USER. IN CONTRAST, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED ONLY IN PROVIDING SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND IS NOT HAVING ANY SOFTWARE PRODUCT BUSINESS . IN VIEW OF THIS STARTLING FUNCTIONAL NON-MATCHING, THIS COMPANY IS DIRECTED TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. (3) R.S. SOFTWARE LTD. : 11. THIS COMPANY WAS INCLUDED BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF IN THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. HOWEVER, DURING THE COURSE OF THE PROCEED INGS BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE COMPANY WAS NOT COMPARA BLE. BOTH THE AUTHORITIES JETTISONED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION. 12. AS REGARDS THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION OF THE LD. DR THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT UNCHOOSE A COMPANY DURING THE COURSE O F ITA NO.15/PUN/2019 OPTIVA INDIA TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED 8 PROCEEDINGS WHICH WAS SUO MOTU CHOSEN AS COMPARABLE IN ITS TRANSFER PRICING STUDY REPORT, WE FIND ENOUGH JUDICIAL PRECE DENTS PERMITTING AN ASSESSEE TO CLAIM WITHDRAWAL OF COMPANY FROM TH E LIST OF COMPARABLES WHICH WAS INADVERTENTLY INCLUDED BY IT IN THE LIS T OF COMPARABLES. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. TATA POWER SOLAR SYSTEMS LTD. (2017) 298 CTR 197 (BOM.) HAS REITERATED THIS VIEW WHICH WAS ALSO TAKEN BY THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYAN A HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. QUARTZ SYSTEMS INDIA (P) LTD. (2011) 244 CTR 542 (P&H) . THUS, IN PRINCIPLE, THERE CAN BE NO QUARREL OVER THE PROPOSITION THAT AN ASSESSEE CAN CLAIM REMOVAL OF A NON-CO MPARABLE COMPANY FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES DRAWN BY IT WHICH WAS WRONGLY INCLUDED. 13. ON MERITS, WE FIND FROM THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THIS COM PANY, A COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED AT PAGE 508 ONWARDS OF THE PAPER BOOK, THAT IT IS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS IN VA RIOUS FACETS OF INDUSTRIAL NEEDS AS UNDER: SWITCHING AND AUTHORISATION: SOLUTION: RS SOFTWARE ASSISTS LEADING BRANDS IN THE GLOBAL PAYMENTS BUSINESS ADDRESS THE CHALLENGES OF SWITCHING AND AUTHORIZATION IN A COMPETITIVE 24X7 MARKETPLACE, IMPROVING AVAILABILITY, SCALABILITY AND SECURITY. WE HAVE WORKED FOR MOR E THAN 20 YEARS TO ENABLE THE SPEED OF A TRANSACTION THROUGHO UT TO GROW FROM 500 TRANSACTIONS AS PER SECOND TO MORE THAN 2 0,000 TRANSACTIONS PER SECOND TODAY. ITA NO.15/PUN/2019 OPTIVA INDIA TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED 9 CLEARING AND SETTLEMENT: SOLUTION: RS SOFTWARE PROVIDES CLEARING AND SETTLEMENT SOLUTIONS THAT HANDLE LARGE TRANSACTIONS IN AN ENVIRONMENT MARKED BY CROSS-BORDER ACTIVITY, REGULATORY CHANGES AND PAYMENT DIVERSITY. RISK AND FRAUD: SOLUTION: RS SOFTWARE HELPS LEADING GLOBAL PAYMENT BRANDS INTEGRATE THEIR FRAUD PREVENTION AND DETECTION SOLUTIONS INTO HIGH-PERFORMANCE PROCESSING ENVIRONMENTS. DISPUTE AND CHARGEBACK: SOLUTION: RS SOFTWARE HAS MORE THAN A DECADE OF EXPERIENCE IN PROVIDING PROVEN DISPUTE AND CHARGEBACK SOLUTIONS TO CUSTOMERS ALL ACROSS THE WORLD. WE HAVE REPEATEDLY DELIVER ED END-TO-END SOLUTIONS THAT INCLUDE ON-GOING TESTING, ENHANCEMENTS AND SUPPORT TO KEEP OUR CLIENTS CURRENT WITH THE DYNAMIC LANDSCAPE IN THE PAYMENTS INDUSTRY. MERCHANT MANAGEMENT: SOLUTION: RS SOFTWARE PROVIDES ACQUIRERS WITH A COMPREHENSIVE SET OF MERCHANT MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS THAT REDUCE COMPLEXITY, MINIMISE COSTS AND DELIVER A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE. TODAY, WE SERVE COME OF THE BEST-KNOWN BRANDS IN THE ACQUIRING SPA CE WITH MORE THAN TWO DECADES OF MERCHANT MANAGEMENT EXPERTISE. BUSINESS ANALYTICS AND TOOLS: SOLUTION: RS SOFTWARE SUPPORTS THE NEEDS OF ITS CLIENTS ACROSS FOUR KEY AREAS (TECHNOLOGY, GOVERNANCE, ANALYTICS AND STRATEGY). WE OFFER A COMPLETE SET OF DATA ANALYTIC SERVICES THAT INCLUD E ASSESSMENT, CONSULTING, ESTABLISHING MIGRATION METHODOLOGIES, IMPLEMENTING, TESTING AND PRODUCTION SUPPORT. 14. IT IS FURTHER BORNE OUT FROM THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE C OMPANY THAT: RS SOFTWARE IS A TECHNOLOGY SERVICE PROVIDER WITH RICH DOMAIN ITA NO.15/PUN/2019 OPTIVA INDIA TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED 10 EXPERIENCE IN PAYMENTS AND A SIGNIFICANT PEDIGREE IN DISPUTE MANAGEMENT. OUR COMPETENCE HAS BEEN BUILT AROUND A COMPREHENSIVE UNDERSTANDING OF THE DISPUTE LIFECYCLE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE NETWORK, ISSUER AND ACQUIRER. RS SOFTWAR E USES A PROPRIETARY SET OF TOOLS TO ACCELERATE DEVELOPMENT AND INTEGRATIO N OF THE DISPUTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. THIS COMPRISES OF THE FOLLOW ING. *A REFERENCE ARCHITECTURE CREATED FOR DISPUTE/CHARGEBACK PROCESSING. *A REQUIREMENTS AND FEATURES CHECKLIST FOR DISPUTE/CHARGEBAC K SOLUTIONS. *BUSINESS TEST CASES FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE TESTING OF A DISPUTE/CHARGEBACK SYSTEM. *INDUSTRY-BEST PRACTICES FOR MANAGING DISPUTES/CHARGEBACKS. . 15. WHEN WE COMPARE THE NATURE OF WORK CARRIED OUT BY R.S. SOFTWARE LTD. WITH THE CONTRACTUAL R&D OF SOFTWARE ACTIVITY CAR RIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND BOTH TO BE POLES APART. IN V IEW OF SUCH FUNCTIONAL DISSIMILARITY, WE ORDER TO EXCLUDE THIS COMPANY FRO M THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. 16. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION, WE SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO/TPO FOR DETERMINING THE ALP OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION OF PROVISION OF SOFTWARE SUP PORT ITA NO.15/PUN/2019 OPTIVA INDIA TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED 11 SERVICES AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF OUR ABOVE DIRECTIONS/OBSERVA TIONS. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE ASSESSEE WILL BE ALLOWED A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE S. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD SEPTEMBER, 2021. SD/- SD/- ( S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI ) (R.S.SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VIC E PRESIDENT PUNE; DATED : 23 RD SEPTEMBER, 2021 / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT; 2. / THE DRP-3, MUMBAI-1/ DRP-3, MUMBAI-2/ DRP-3, MUMBAI-3/ 3. THE CIT(IT & TP), PUNE 4. 5. DR, ITAT, C BENCH, PUNE / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // SENIOR P RIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE ITA NO.15/PUN/2019 OPTIVA INDIA TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED 12 DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 22-09-2021 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 23-09-2021 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS 7. DATE OF UPLOADING ORDER SR.PS 8. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 10. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE A.R. 11. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. *